Are we being presumptious of a Marquez win?

[lvlarc]

I've watched the fight again and I had it 6 rounds apiece making Marquez a close winner 114-113 including the 7th round as a 10-8. So had the 7th been an even round like it should have, or a 1 point round for Marquez due to the foul, then I'd have Barrera the winner or a draw in case of 7th being 10-9 for JMM.

Many people have been vocal about the 7th saying it would have been a 10-8 for Marquez regardless of the knockdown and foul, I disagree. If you watch it again, Barrera actually wins the first 90 seconds of the 7th by jabbing and countering, making Marquez miss quite a few times. It wasn't untill the 1:30 mark that Marquez landed the big right that lead to the onslaught, but even still Barrera blocked many of those shots when he was in trouble but Marquez clearly won the round, 10-9... up until that perfect right counter that knocked Marquez down which evened up the round 10-10 (or 10-9 Barrera if you felt the kd was enough to swing the round in MAB's favour) Then Barrera lost his cool with the foul which should have finally made the 7th 10-9 Marquez and it would have, had Nady not been such a blind fool.


Very close fight, hard rounds to score and I guess it depends on what you prefer. I liked Barrera's stiff hard jab, clean counter punching, footwork, better defence and ring generalship, enough to win 6 rounds.

I have no probs with people having Marquez the winner, but this was not a decisive victory imo and a rematch would be great. I actually think Barrera may perform slightly better in the rematch, he's too proud a man and has shown he can adapt in the past.

[steve689]

Claude Abrams got all 3 big fight night predictions wrong on this card! He is losing his touch lately.

[Pong]

Barrera showed he can fight OLD. No mistake his legs have gone, his stamina has gone. He had a fantastic defense (which faltered at times R7) Marquez is also looking older and worse than the Pacman fight (had Marquez winning that by 1-3 points)

I had Barrera winning:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 totals
MAB 10 10 10 9 9 10 8 10 10 9 9 10 114
JMM 9 9 9 10 10 9 8 9 9 10 10 9 111

If I change the round 7 to a 10-8 Marquez round I still have it 114-113 Barrera, on thinking about it Marquez whipped Barrera in that 1, so even if barrera hadn't been docked a point it would be 9-9, so with the point deduction it should be 9-8. You can score a round 10-8 withotu a kd cant you - so why do you need the ref to call the kd if he isnt doing his job?

It appears you cannot really judge fights. First you had M´Baye beating Kotelnik by three points, now this. Well it was basically the same fight as M´Baye, horrible biased commentary and you scored style over substance again, ignoring who was in charge and landed the harder cleaner punches.

[Goz]

I felt JMM was winning most of the exchanges and without scoring the fight by writing it down I felt he won by 3/4 rounds.

Obviously the knockdown situation was strange because you could get a 3 point swing on that alone meaning the score could go from say 116-114 to 119-111.

If the knockdown is scored then it's 10-8 to MAB with a point deducted so it's effectively 9-8 to MAB. But then if it wasn't scored a knockdown as the ref didn't administer a count then it's 10-8 to Marquez! Actually a 4 point swing if you think about it!

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Barrera showed he can fight OLD. No mistake his legs have gone, his stamina has gone. He had a fantastic defense (which faltered at times R7) Marquez is also looking older and worse than the Pacman fight (had Marquez winning that by 1-3 points)

I had Barrera winning:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 totals
MAB 10 10 10 9 9 10 8 10 10 9 9 10 114
JMM 9 9 9 10 10 9 8 9 9 10 10 9 111

If I change the round 7 to a 10-8 Marquez round I still have it 114-113 Barrera, on thinking about it Marquez whipped Barrera in that 1, so even if barrera hadn't been docked a point it would be 9-9, so with the point deduction it should be 9-8. You can score a round 10-8 withotu a kd cant you - so why do you need the ref to call the kd if he isnt doing his job?

It appears you cannot really judge fights. First you had M´Baye beating Kotelnik by three points, now this. Well it was basically the same fight as M´Baye, horrible biased commentary and you scored style over substance again, ignoring who was in charge and landed the harder cleaner punches.

Put your card up then, if you dont have a card then STFU

Plenty seem to agree with the Barrera win, and Barreras left hooks were more powerful than anything in Marquezs soft 1-2 arsenal. Regardless I score on a round by round basis on who connects the most quality cleanest punches. And jabs and lazy rights rate below left hooks and heavy rights. Especially when Barrera slipped or blocked allot of Marquezs work

I think I had mbaiye a 2 point winner, Maussa Kotelniks biggest fan had Kotelnik a 2 point winner on secodn viewing, so we disagreed on the scoring of 2 rounds I wanted Kotelnik to win but thought he was far too lazy

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Perhaps if Barrera's younger, Barrera takes more chances & Marquez punishes him for it. No one can be sure. .

The Barrera who fought Hamed had both the refined boxing ability he lacked earlier in hsi career and the speed and workrate. Barreras speed has diminished allot as has his workrate. If he was throwing a right off the jab and a left hook off that he would have punnished Marquez conclusively. Barrera showed what he was capable of at the end of rounds where the Barrera of old came out, if Barrera did this 3 miniutes a round he probably would stop Marquez

Marquez himself isn't as sharp himself but has kept more of what he had a Prime Barrera is a league above

Maybe shot was too harsh a description especially as I thought Barrera had pulled it out. Please don't make the case JMM dominated he didn't, it was a close fight with each fighter landing around the same volume of shots, its all on what work you prefer.

[Autobarn]

I don't think there's anything solid that Barrera would've won any earlier encounter. It's like the old "Evan Fields when he was younger would've outworked Lewis." Exactly HOW when Evan Fields wouldn't go near Lewis to the point that he tried (and failed) to get a fight with Akinwande instead, fighting Lewis only when embarrassed into it? Same with Barrera - he was NEVER going to fight Marquez - until one of those little wormholes happened, so why does Barrera deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Neither Morales nor Barrera never intended to fight Marquez.

JMM was always the harder, sharper, straighter puncher and this would've always troubled this PERFECT BARRERA that ppl are conjuring. I know Barrera is smoother, more intelligent, more relaxed and a master of doing what's needed to win a round. But JMM would always have more reason for intensity and extra will to win.

Sat's fight wouldn't even have been close if JMM hadn't got sloppy trying to finish him. Members of the ringside press - who were closer to the action than us - all had JMM by margins of 5 points and more.

Barrera a league above? Never. Smoother and more elegent, yes. Give JMM a chance, he's onlyhad 2 superfights.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Maussa I was thinking WTF is this great boxing rivalry with Evan Fields and Lewis, shit I'm ebarassed, never heard of them

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Neither Morales nor Barrera never intended to fight Marquez..

Marquez was never a name and never had much in terms of achievement until when in 2003 he unified the WBA/IBF titles Featherweight titles, as soon as he had those his next fight was with Pacman. By this time Barrera and Morales had moved to 130

Morales and Barrera had bigger names to shoot for. Barreras first fight at 126 was linear champ Hamed, he had a few gimmes but packed in a Morales rematch and a Tapia fight who had just won the IBF and was a far bigger name than Marquez as was Kelly.

Fighters always are encouraged by their managers to go after big names with lots of stock and Marquez has never had that, until maybe when he got the WBA/IBF, which was when MAB/Morales left the division and Pacman gave him his big fight.

Marquez is responsible for his lack of opportunties. Turning down fights with Hamed and a rematch qith Pacman while losing to Norwood and John have wasted his career. But then again fighting Hamed and prime MAB/Morales may have registered a few more defeats and brutal 1s at that.

Now you could argue MAB/Morales should have tried to clear out 126, which I think they should have tried too. Hamed cleared out 126 in his time and isn't given the acknowlegment or respect for that. He missed the odd name but you can't fight them all

[THEBUTCH]

I watched the fight again, enjoyed it just as much the second time around, and still had JMM winning very clearly. I think it's one of those classics that you watch again and again and again....

Great fight , Barrera played his part, but stand my comments on his conduct. He's fine when he's winning but when something doesn't go his way, there has to be something unjust to explain the loss. A POOR SPORT and it leaves a bad taste.

[Goz]

Great fight , Barrera played his part, but stand my comments on his conduct. He's fine when he's winning but when something doesn't go his way, there has to be something unjust to explain the loss. A POOR SPORT and it leaves a bad taste.

Like the Arsenal of boxing....

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Great fight , Barrera played his part, but stand my comments on his conduct. He's fine when he's winning but when something doesn't go his way, there has to be something unjust to explain the loss. A POOR SPORT and it leaves a bad taste.

Like the Arsenal of boxing....

Yes an overated fight, allot of skill, but the action and engagement was lacking.

[THEBUTCH]

Not in my book and even the Vegas crowd didn't boo. Usually, the slightest lull induces unrest in the crowd. Not this time, becuase the action was straight out of the top drawer. I could understand your comments if this was Barrera-Juarez 2, that was as dull as dishwater.

No, it was a classic, and Barrera finished second!

[Goz]

My comment about Arsenal was about Barerra being a bad loser, not the fight being poor.

I thought it was an exciting fight, however some way short of classics like MAB-Morales 1, Corrales-Castillo etc...

Don't feel it was quite up there with them....

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

My comment about Arsenal was about Barerra being a bad loser, not the fight being poor.

I thought it was an exciting fight, however some way short of classics like MAB-Morales 1, Corrales-Castillo etc...

Don't feel it was quite up there with them....

I don't think he was a bad loser, he thought he won, 40% on fans thought he won, theres nothing wrong with that. The judging was corrupt all night (just look at the DHOP fight) and Marquezs cards were filled out in advance regardless of if you thoought he won Barrera clearly won at least 4-5rounds and judges cards were a rip off. Now I wouldn't have a problem with JMM been given a verdict over Barrera by 1-3points but Golden Boy has taken to corruption like a duck to water

[Goz]

The scores were too wide I agree.

I said that on an earlier post, but still felt JMM won it by a few rounds.

Also felt Watt was giving MABs work far too much credit, in my own opinion of course.

[Autobarn]

My comment about Arsenal was about Barerra being a bad loser, not the fight being poor.

I thought it was an exciting fight, however some way short of classics like MAB-Morales 1, Corrales-Castillo etc...

Don't feel it was quite up there with them....

I don't think he was a bad loser, he thought he won, 40% on fans thought he won, theres nothing wrong with that. The judging was corrupt all night (just look at the DHOP fight) and Marquezs cards were filled out in advance regardless of if you thoought he won Barrera clearly won at least 4-5rounds and judges cards were a rip off. Now I wouldn't have a problem with JMM been given a verdict over Barrera by 1-3points but Golden Boy has taken to corruption like a duck to water

No corruption. The scores actually were reflected by the ringside press, only the English guys Graham Houston & Keiran Mulvanney having it closer. The Yanks who were there had it between 116-111 and 118-109.

Marquez didn't turn down Naz. The WBO let Naz duck Marquez.

Marquez had the same promoter as Morales. Top Rank never had much planned for either of the M brothers - look how much progress they're making away from the Bobfather.

Marquez was WBA/IBF champ when Barrera was 'People's Champion'. Barrrea chose old Kelley, small Tapia, then unknown Pac...A fight should've been on the cards around 2002/3, but MAB was fighting everyone but.

Marquez has had bad luck - the disgraceful Derrick Gainer, the robbery away from home vs John, the point deductions costing him vs Norwood.

He also had bad business decisions, but hey he dealt with Pac in a manner MAB couldn't.

A fight with Barrera would always mean much more to Marquez, and I think he'd always be more intense and hungry. Like I say, Barrera has the mental disadvantage in this fight, because it's one he wouldn't, shouldn't want to take.

Marco's great, but save your excuses, he doesn't deserve them.

[THEBUTCH]

Good post.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

My comment about Arsenal was about Barerra being a bad loser, not the fight being poor.

I thought it was an exciting fight, however some way short of classics like MAB-Morales 1, Corrales-Castillo etc...

Don't feel it was quite up there with them....

I don't think he was a bad loser, he thought he won, 40% on fans thought he won, theres nothing wrong with that. The judging was corrupt all night (just look at the DHOP fight) and Marquezs cards were filled out in advance regardless of if you thoought he won Barrera clearly won at least 4-5rounds and judges cards were a rip off. Now I wouldn't have a problem with JMM been given a verdict over Barrera by 1-3points but Golden Boy has taken to corruption like a duck to water

No corruption. The scores actually were reflected by the ringside press, only the English guys Graham Houston & Keiran Mulvanney having it closer. The Yanks who were there had it between 116-111 and 118-109.

Marquez didn't turn down Naz. The WBO let Naz duck Marquez.

Marquez had the same promoter as Morales. Top Rank never had much planned for either of the M brothers - look how much progress they're making away from the Bobfather.

Marquez was WBA/IBF champ when Barrera was 'People's Champion'. Barrrea chose old Kelley, small Tapia, then unknown Pac...A fight should've been on the cards around 2002/3, but MAB was fighting everyone but.

Marquez has had bad luck - the disgraceful Derrick Gainer, the robbery away from home vs John, the point deductions costing him vs Norwood.

He also had bad business decisions, but hey he dealt with Pac in a manner MAB couldn't.

A fight with Barrera would always mean much more to Marquez, and I think he'd always be more intense and hungry. Like I say, Barrera has the mental disadvantage in this fight, because it's one he wouldn't, shouldn't want to take.

Marco's great, but save your excuses, he doesn't deserve them.

You have a few facts wrong but first with the scoring I couldn't care less how the ringside reporters had the fight, Barrera was winning most the early rounds and won 8,9 12 for sure. You get a better view from a TV than you do from ringside so why do people bring up ringside scoring?

Its blatant that the judges were paid for DHOPs BLATANT and equally so its blatant that 119 for Marquez is a blatantly pre-purchased card for the man who has longer in the game and more big money fights to offer Golden Boy

Its a fact Marquez turned down an offer from Hamed. Hamed asked the WBO to delay any mandatories so he could fight the other belt holders.

Its also a fact Marquez didn't have the IBF and WBA for more than 2 weeks before Barrera lost to Pacman. Lots of time for a unification fight then there when a Pacman fight was set in stone. Pacman was also more worthy of a shot at Barrera been the man at super-bantamweight and a 2 weight champ.

I did have Marquez beating Pacman by a point when I re-watched on Friday. No arguments Marquez did better, but then again Pacman was a much better known quantity when Marquez faced him.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

As for Barreras choices of opponent - Kelly was a gimme which he was entitled too after fighting Hamed and Morales. Tapia was a multi-weight champ and IBF champ - that fight had some meaning at the time.

If barrera had fought and destroyed Marquez in 2002 instead of Morales he'd be allot poorer and be accused of ducking Morales. If he fought Marquez in 2003 instead of Pacman and Pacman becomes WBA/IBF champ and Pacman has to wait until 2007 to get his shot at the Mexicans, everyone says Pacman was the avoided 1.

You can't fight everyone.

[Autobarn]

Fair enough then, JMM wasn't uniifed, but he was clearly a force after hammering Medina. And they were major champions at a close enough proximity to e considered equals, in a manner of speaking.

In your view, the rds went that way. A lot of ppl would argue that MAB did not win all the early and certainly not closing as well as you have him.

Accept it, JMM's the man of Barrera's nightmares.

[THEBUTCH]

The judge who had 119 simply went the way of JMM when they were close rounds...which was fine. The judges who had 116 for JMM obviously gave MAB the benefit in those close rounds...which I can accept. Either way, these were good judges who refused to bow down to MAB's reputation and score the fight honestly.

What a rediculous theory to claim the judges were bought

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

The judge who had 119 simply went the way of JMM when they were close rounds...which was fine. The judges who had 116 for JMM obviously gave MAB the benefit in those close rounds...which I can accept. Either way, these were good judges who refused to bow down to MAB's reputation and score the fight honestly.

What a rediculous theory to claim the judges were bought

JMM got beat up in rounds 8 and 9 when he was shaky legged from the KD, those rounds weren't close, so NO it is not fine. 1 and 2 weren't really close. JMM did very little in round 12 and Barrera finnished stronger. The most JMM should get is 115

Why is it ridicolous to claim the judges were bought? DHOPS fight was BLATANTLY BOUGHT as was the JMM 119 scorecard and probably the other 2 scorecards.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Fair enough then, JMM wasn't uniifed, but he was clearly a force after hammering Medina. And they were major champions at a close enough proximity to e considered equals, in a manner of speaking.

In your view, the rds went that way. A lot of ppl would argue that MAB did not win all the early and certainly not closing as well as you have him.

Accept it, JMM's the man of Barrera's nightmares.

JMM-MAB may have happened if MAB dispatched Pacman. Marquez always would have given stylistic problems to MAB but man of his nightmares? Hardly this version of MAB beat Marquez for me

[THEBUTCH]

It's ridiculous to claim the judges were bought because Barrera lost clearly in they eyes of many. Even if this was close fight, which it was not, that would still be dodgy statement to make.

Your scoring is way off. MAB wasn't any more effective in the 12th than JMM. As for the earlier rounds, some were close enough for argument, but the judges and several posters on here disagree with your interpretation.

The excuses just keep flooding in !