BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote:People forget how great and awesome the great Marco Antonio Barrera was in the 90s decade. His down fights with Junior Jones cannot diminish his accomplishments one iota. Barrera was a true warrior just like Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez but he separates himself from this 3-pack from the quality and quantity of great fights he had in his career and prime.

Marquez got whupped twice in my book in the first 2 fights by the great Pacman. I have not seen the third fight, but to me, it does not matter. Morales probably won more titles, but Barrera beat him 2 out of 3 in close fights that could have gone either way.

When Pacman beat Barrera, I think Barrera was out of his prime. He was fading. It would have been a great fight if both would have clash in their primes.

Im a big Barrera fan, but you are kidding to say he is clearly better than the other two.

His losses to Jones dont diminish him? Why not?

Worst of all is you saying Marquez got whupped by Pacquiao in their first two bouts (what total garbage!), and then, without even having seen the last fight, you declare it unimportant? Since you havent seen it, let me tell you why you're WAY off-base...

1. Marquez, at a minimum, competed hotly with Pacquiao, and he was the first man to do so since...himself, three years earlier! Pacquiao didnt lose A ROUND between the second and third Marquez bouts.

3. Many, myself included, feel Marquez BEAT Pacquiao --- and I dont mean I scored for him but it couldve gone either way (which exactly describes my card for Fight #2, BTW), I mean Marquez was robbed to my eyes.

elmersalsa wrote:People forget how great and awesome the great Marco Antonio Barrera was in the 90s decade. His down fights with Junior Jones cannot diminish his accomplishments one iota. Barrera was a true warrior just like Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez but he separates himself from this 3-pack from the quality and quantity of great fights he had in his career and prime.

Marquez got whupped twice in my book in the first 2 fights by the great Pacman. I have not seen the third fight, but to me, it does not matter. Morales probably won more titles, but Barrera beat him 2 out of 3 in close fights that could have gone either way.

When Pacman beat Barrera, I think Barrera was out of his prime. He was fading. It would have been a great fight if both would have clash in their primes.

This post is devoid of logic. You say the Junior Jones losses can't "diminish him one iota" then try to dump on Marquez erroneously claiming that he got "whupped" by Pac twice . . huh? And what's this "the third fight doesn't matter?" Why not? B/c you can't handle the truth?

Only one of the 3 got WHUPPED by Pac twice and that was Barrera (Morales in their rematch at least was winning the fight until he got his nose broken and subsequently had breathing issues which sapped his stamina).

And how was MAB out of his prime when he fought Pac the first time? He was looking as good as he'd ever looked and topped the lb for lb lists. And FOLLOWING that fight fought his best fight vs Morales in their rubber match and looked awesome vs Ayala. And Manny DESTROYED him. And in their rematch, instead of trying to win like Marquez and Morales did, he decided to fight a defensive survivalist strategy that made the fight stink b/c he didn't want to get KO'd again . .

dempsey....MAB's actions are the "down side" of an intelligent fighter lol.

They sometimes value being "safe".... and it can have a high price.

thunderfromdownunder wrote:Barrera, Morales & Marquez.
Who is the best off the three- all time wise. I think a legitamate case can be made for all three.nothing much really seperates them. I'll go out on a limb and say Marco. On account of two wins over Erik and his domination of Hamed.
What say you?

Lest we forget Israel Vasquez...A great fourth member of this group, with the best left-hook.
His downfall : tender skin...What a warrior ...

beaujack wrote:

thunderfromdownunder wrote:Barrera, Morales & Marquez.
Who is the best off the three- all time wise. I think a legitamate case can be made for all three.nothing much really seperates them. I'll go out on a limb and say Marco. On account of two wins over Erik and his domination of Hamed.
What say you?

Lest we forget Israel Vasquez...A great fourth member of this group, with the best left-hook.
His downfall : tender skin...What a warrior ...

Please. Vazquez is not in that class.

BoxBuzz wrote:dempsey....MAB's actions are the "down side" of an intelligent fighter lol.

They sometimes value being "safe".... and it can have a high price.

Did you see it!?

It was SO blatant, even his biggest cheerleader, Lampley, started to cannibalise him during the telecast. The type of, "effort," a man would not be paid for fifty or sixty years before.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

beaujack wrote:

thunderfromdownunder wrote:Barrera, Morales & Marquez.
Who is the best off the three- all time wise. I think a legitamate case can be made for all three.nothing much really seperates them. I'll go out on a limb and say Marco. On account of two wins over Erik and his domination of Hamed.
What say you?

Lest we forget Israel Vasquez...A great fourth member of this group, with the best left-hook.
His downfall : tender skin...What a warrior ...

Please. Vazquez is not in that class.

He should be near their class though, but he doesn't really fit into this discussion considering he wasn't contemporary with them, he's a smaller guy. He wrecked a guy Pacquiao went 12 rounds with right afterwards.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:dempsey....MAB's actions are the "down side" of an intelligent fighter lol.

They sometimes value being "safe".... and it can have a high price.

Did you see it!?

It was SO blatant, even his biggest cheerleader, Lampley, started to cannibalise him during the telecast. The type of, "effort," a man would not be paid for fifty or sixty years before.

He was fighting a defensive pot-shotting fight because that's what he had to do to win, he simply lacked the reflexes and speed by that second fight to pull it off properly, and he lacked Marquez' expert timing to pull it off despite that. He exposed some of the weaknesses in Pacquiao's attack during that fight that JMM would be able to take full advantage of when they fought the second time.

In the first fight Barrera's training camp burned down and he was recovering from brain surgery, he was in no normal shape at all for somebody like Pacquiao who was streaking like that.

He quit in that second fight, there is no other description.

There wasnt even a pretense of effort. I dont know what you were watching.

dempseyfire wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:People forget how great and awesome the great Marco Antonio Barrera was in the 90s decade. His down fights with Junior Jones cannot diminish his accomplishments one iota. Barrera was a true warrior just like Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez but he separates himself from this 3-pack from the quality and quantity of great fights he had in his career and prime.

Marquez got whupped twice in my book in the first 2 fights by the great Pacman. I have not seen the third fight, but to me, it does not matter. Morales probably won more titles, but Barrera beat him 2 out of 3 in close fights that could have gone either way.

When Pacman beat Barrera, I think Barrera was out of his prime. He was fading. It would have been a great fight if both would have clash in their primes.

This post is devoid of logic. You say the Junior Jones losses can't "diminish him one iota" then try to dump on Marquez erroneously claiming that he got "whupped" by Pac twice . . huh? And what's this "the third fight doesn't matter?" Why not? B/c you can't handle the truth?

Only one of the 3 got WHUPPED by Pac twice and that was Barrera (Morales in their rematch at least was winning the fight until he got his nose broken and subsequently had breathing issues which sapped his stamina).

And how was MAB out of his prime when he fought Pac the first time? He was looking as good as he'd ever looked and topped the lb for lb lists. And FOLLOWING that fight fought his best fight vs Morales in their rubber match and looked awesome vs Ayala. And Manny DESTROYED him. And in their rematch, instead of trying to win like Marquez and Morales did, he decided to fight a defensive survivalist strategy that made the fight stink b/c he didn't want to get KO'd again . .

His losses to Junior Jones does not diminish his career one iota. Look at Barrera's accomplishments. Look at who he beat. Barrera was an awesome figther. If you want to say that JMM got robbed the 3 fights with Pacman, fine. It is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, JMM got whupped at least 2 times by Pacman. How can a man that go down in a 10-point scoring system, four times in 2 fights, wins the fight? How could that be, sir?

And like I said, his 3 wars with EM, were 3 classics that could have gone either way. No shame about that.
Barrera in 2003 was not the same Barrera of 2000 and under. Something he lost when he fougth the Pacman. I would have love to see both of them fight when both were at their very peak. It would not surprise me either outcome.

I have not seen Pacman vs JMM 3rd fight. Some people say that Pacman won. Some people say JMM won.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:People forget how great and awesome the great Marco Antonio Barrera was in the 90s decade. His down fights with Junior Jones cannot diminish his accomplishments one iota. Barrera was a true warrior just like Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez but he separates himself from this 3-pack from the quality and quantity of great fights he had in his career and prime.

Marquez got whupped twice in my book in the first 2 fights by the great Pacman. I have not seen the third fight, but to me, it does not matter. Morales probably won more titles, but Barrera beat him 2 out of 3 in close fights that could have gone either way.

When Pacman beat Barrera, I think Barrera was out of his prime. He was fading. It would have been a great fight if both would have clash in their primes.

Im a big Barrera fan, but you are kidding to say he is clearly better than the other two.

His losses to Jones dont diminish him? Why not?

Worst of all is you saying Marquez got whupped by Pacquiao in their first two bouts (what total garbage!), and then, without even having seen the last fight, you declare it unimportant? Since you havent seen it, let me tell you why you're WAY off-base...

1. Marquez, at a minimum, competed hotly with Pacquiao, and he was the first man to do so since...himself, three years earlier! Pacquiao didnt lose A ROUND between the second and third Marquez bouts.

3. Many, myself included, feel Marquez BEAT Pacquiao --- and I dont mean I scored for him but it couldve gone either way (which exactly describes my card for Fight #2, BTW), I mean Marquez was robbed to my eyes.

Why his losses against Jones should diminish him? Look at his accomplishments, GI?

If you believe that JMM beat the great Pacman, the three times, fine. That is your opinion. To me, he got whupped fair and square the first two fights. How can a man get dropped 4 times in two fights, and still be the winner? How could that be GI? Especially the first fight, it was not a draw at all. What the judges were looking?
I have not seen the third fight because it did not matter to me. In my eyes, Pacman could afford to lose the third fight if he wanted it to. He already in my eyes beat him twice, at least.

JMM nor EM, to me, were not great fighters. They do not make the top 100 list pound per pound in my book. It might enter in yours...There it go, matters of opinion. Of the three, only Barrera makes it in my list.

Can we see your list?

I never said Marquez won the first fight --- Pacquiao did. Im sorry to be blunt, but you dont understand how to score a bout if you think Pacquiao, "whupped," Marquez in the second. Its pure fantasy.

This next part, I really shouldnt bother with, but what the hell. This'll be once and once only. You ask how a man can get dropped four times in two bouts and still win? Its simple arithmetic. Watch...

You get dropped 3x in round one, you are down 10-6 --- thats FOUR points, okay? Excluding knockdowns and deductions, each of the remaining rounds are worth one point. Thats ELEVEN points in total. Now, if the floored boxer wins the next eleven rounds 10-9, or even NINE of the next eleven, he has won the bout!

There it is, Elmer. No opinions, black and white fact it, "can be."

Unless your rebuttal is four is a higher number than nine or eleven...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Can we see your list?

I never said Marquez won the first fight --- Pacquiao did. Im sorry to be blunt, but you dont understand how to score a bout if you think Pacquiao, "whupped," Marquez in the second. Its pure fantasy.

This next part, I really shouldnt bother with, but what the hell. This'll be once and once only. You ask how a man can get dropped four times in two bouts and still win? Its simple arithmetic. Watch...

You get dropped 3x in round one, you are down 10-6 --- thats FOUR points, okay? Excluding knockdowns and deductions, each of the remaining rounds are worth one point. Thats ELEVEN points in total. Now, if the floored boxer wins the next eleven rounds 10-9, or even NINE of the next eleven, he has won the bout!

There it is, Elmer. No opinions, black and white fact it, "can be."

Unless your rebuttal is four is a higher number than nine or eleven...

In order for JMM win fight #1 or fight #2, it must be a shootout from round 2 on. And that is very impossible. He did not do it. Pacman didn't get outboxed, nor there was any indication that he was getting beat in every round. Plus, Pacman was the champion the second fight, I believe, if I am not mistaken.

Listen to this, GI: YOU GOT TO OVERWHELM THE CHAMPION IN ORDER TO WIN...Ask Ken Norton and Jimmy Young vs the great Ali. Those were robberies!

Marquez did not overwhelm Pacman. All rounds from round 3 and on were close (The fights that I saw). Some for Pacman and some for Marquez.
And the judges in the first fight gave the round 10-7 for giving Marquez a "chance" to comeback into the fight. What kind of scoring was that, sir? That was total garbage.

If you think JMM won the second fight, that is your view. My view is that Pacman won the first two. The last one, to me, it does not matter.

I started to reply, but then I realised what I really want to say now is, "fuk it."

Oh, that, and a reminder --- can we see this list of yours?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Oh, that, and a reminder --- can we see this list of yours?

It is a matter of opinion. You will see the list some day. Right now, I don't have it with me.

I feel like Im on a journey to the lost City of Atlantis, knowing I will, "one day," see the legendary top-100 of Elmers. Some feel its a myth, but Im out for it. Where it is, Man has pondered through the ages...a keepers box in Zurich, a bank vault in the Cayman islands, buried on a remote beach in a genie's bottle, or hidden within the jungle of a lost tribes ruins.

I really do look forward to it....although it is interesting, Elmer, that you remember a lot of names who are and arent on the list, without actually having it on you.

elmersalsa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Can we see your list?

I never said Marquez won the first fight --- Pacquiao did. Im sorry to be blunt, but you dont understand how to score a bout if you think Pacquiao, "whupped," Marquez in the second. Its pure fantasy.

This next part, I really shouldnt bother with, but what the hell. This'll be once and once only. You ask how a man can get dropped four times in two bouts and still win? Its simple arithmetic. Watch...

You get dropped 3x in round one, you are down 10-6 --- thats FOUR points, okay? Excluding knockdowns and deductions, each of the remaining rounds are worth one point. Thats ELEVEN points in total. Now, if the floored boxer wins the next eleven rounds 10-9, or even NINE of the next eleven, he has won the bout!

There it is, Elmer. No opinions, black and white fact it, "can be."

Unless your rebuttal is four is a higher number than nine or eleven...

In order for JMM win fight #1 or fight #2, it must be a shootout from round 2 on. And that is very impossible. He did not do it. Pacman didn't get outboxed, nor there was any indication that he was getting beat in every round. Plus, Pacman was the champion the second fight, I believe, if I am not mistaken.

Listen to this, GI: YOU GOT TO OVERWHELM THE CHAMPION IN ORDER TO WIN...Ask Ken Norton and Jimmy Young vs the great Ali. Those were robberies!

Marquez did not overwhelm Pacman. All rounds from round 3 and on were close (The fights that I saw). Some for Pacman and some for Marquez.
And the judges in the first fight gave the round 10-7 for giving Marquez a "chance" to comeback into the fight. What kind of scoring was that, sir? That was total garbage.

If you think JMM won the second fight, that is your view. My view is that Pacman won the first two. The last one, to me, it does not matter.

No, Marquez doesn't have to "shutout" Pac to win either fight 1 or fight 2 after the KDs . . apparently someone was sleeping in 4th grade mathematics.
You just contradicted yourself when you said "you have to overwhelm the champion to win", cited Young and Norton vs Ali as examples, and then said they were both robberies!! So which is it?

You said "the third fight between Marquez and Pac doesn't matter b/c Pac already beat Marquez twice, at least" . . first off, how is that an "at least" statement? Did Pac arguably kill JMM in one of the bouts, and he had to rise from the grave to fight on again?
2ndly, that still doesn't explain why that fight "wouldn't count" . . a past-it Marquez beating Pacquao (as my scorecard and most others had) would show that Marquez was able to do something Barrera was NEVER able to come close to doing . .but you want to just conveniently ignore that, just like you ignore/give excuses for all of MAB's losses.

Lastly, you keep saying "look at who MAB beat" in comparison to Morales and Marquez . .yes let's do. They both have better resumes than Barrera . . the only elite fighter Barrera beat that they didn't is Hamed, and Hamed ducked the other two.

elmersalsa wrote:You will see the list some day. Right now, I don't have it with me.

Jaywheel wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:You will see the list some day. Right now, I don't have it with me.

I had Marquez 114-111 in the first fight, Pac 114-113 in the second & Marquez 116-112 in the third.

Elmer sets new standards of idiocy as he goes along. barrera was great and Marquez & Morales were not?

Pac/Marquez 3 is irrelevant to Marquez's resume because Elmer scored two fights for him?

Joe Frazier would have smashed George Foreman a few months earlier.

Thomas Hearns could never beat Roberto Duran at 147 pounds or any pressure fighter because he lost to Aaron pryor in the Amateurs.

And Fullmer, Marquez, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Morales, etc.. are all definitively outside of a list that doesn't exist.

All I can say is wow, and

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I had Marquez 114-111 in the first fight, Pac 114-113 in the second & Marquez 116-112 in the third.

Elmer sets new standards of idiocy as he goes along. barrera was great and Marquez & Morales were not?

Pac/Marquez 3 is irrelevant to Marquez's resume because Elmer scored two fights for him?

Joe Frazier would have smashed George Foreman a few months earlier.

Thomas Hearns could never beat Roberto Duran at 147 pounds or any pressure fighter because he lost to Aaron pryor in the Amateurs.

And Fullmer, Marquez, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Morales, etc.. are all definitively outside of a list that doesn't exist.

All I can say is wow, and

Everything is a matter of opinion. You got Marquez winning the first fight? is beyond me to absorb and comprehend, but well, What can I do?

If you got dropped 3 times in one fight or in one round, there is no way, no way, that a fighter that got dropped wins the fight after round 2 when both fighters shared rounds all the way throught the 12th....No way...You gotta scored a shutout, or drop the same guy that dropped you 2 or 3 times

Marquez made it competitive in fight #1 and #2, but to me, he got whupped folks. Deal with it. There is no shame losing to Pacman twice. No shame at all. All these fighters will be some day in the Hall of Fame. They are in my hall of fame. It should be in yours also.

Now, you are bringing subjects that are way out of the question of what are we talking here. What Duran-Hearns, or Frazier-Foreman got to do with this topic? The 3 Amigos? We are discussing of who of the 3 was the best, and I said Barrera and with subjective and objective argument. To me, he was the best of the bunch.

My list of the top 100 greatest fighters is SUBJECTIVE, that means, in my own opinion, but trying to be as most OBJECTIVE as possible. It hurt me to exclude guys like Gene Fullmer, Tony Zale, Ismael Laguna, Flash Elorde, James Toney, Rocky Graziano, Harry Wills, Joe Jeannette, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Antonio Cervantes, etc.

And I was NEVER IMPRESSED, NEVER, with guys like Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Marquez nor Morales in my top 100 list in my view. They never impress me.

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I had Marquez 114-111 in the first fight, Pac 114-113 in the second & Marquez 116-112 in the third.

Elmer sets new standards of idiocy as he goes along. barrera was great and Marquez & Morales were not?

Pac/Marquez 3 is irrelevant to Marquez's resume because Elmer scored two fights for him?

Joe Frazier would have smashed George Foreman a few months earlier.

Thomas Hearns could never beat Roberto Duran at 147 pounds or any pressure fighter because he lost to Aaron pryor in the Amateurs.

And Fullmer, Marquez, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Morales, etc.. are all definitively outside of a list that doesn't exist.

All I can say is wow, and

Everything is a matter of opinion. You got Marquez winning the first fight? is beyond me to absorb and comprehend, but well, What can I do?

If you got dropped 3 times in one fight or in one round, there is no way, no way, that a fighter that got dropped wins the fight after round 2 when both fighters shared rounds all the way throught the 12th....No way...You gotta scored a shutout, or drop the same guy that dropped you 2 or 3 times

Marquez made it competitive in fight #1 and #2, but to me, he got whupped folks. Deal with it. There is no shame losing to Pacman twice. No shame at all. All these fighters will be some day in the Hall of Fame. They are in my hall of fame. It should be in yours also.

Now, you are bringing subjects that are way out of the question of what are we talking here. What Duran-Hearns, or Frazier-Foreman got to do with this topic? The 3 Amigos? We are discussing of who of the 3 was the best, and I said Barrera and with subjective and objective argument. To me, he was the best of the bunch.

My list of the top 100 greatest fighters is SUBJECTIVE, that means, in my own opinion, but trying to be as most OBJECTIVE as possible. It hurt me to exclude guys like Gene Fullmer, Tony Zale, Ismael Laguna, Flash Elorde, James Toney, Rocky Graziano, Harry Wills, Joe Jeannette, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Antonio Cervantes, etc.

And I was NEVER IMPRESSED, NEVER, with guys like Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Marquez nor Morales in my top 100 list in my view. They never impress me.

I just brought up some of your more memorable work. No need to explain yourself, I long ago stopped taking anything you say seriously. I read you for the humor.

Luis Rodriguez is probably your worst omission yet. He might be in my top 50. Lists are subjective, you're just overwhelmed by bias and an addle mind.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I had Marquez 114-111 in the first fight, Pac 114-113 in the second & Marquez 116-112 in the third.

Elmer sets new standards of idiocy as he goes along. barrera was great and Marquez & Morales were not?

Pac/Marquez 3 is irrelevant to Marquez's resume because Elmer scored two fights for him?

Joe Frazier would have smashed George Foreman a few months earlier.

Thomas Hearns could never beat Roberto Duran at 147 pounds or any pressure fighter because he lost to Aaron pryor in the Amateurs.

And Fullmer, Marquez, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Morales, etc.. are all definitively outside of a list that doesn't exist.

All I can say is wow, and

Everything is a matter of opinion. You got Marquez winning the first fight? is beyond me to absorb and comprehend, but well, What can I do?

If you got dropped 3 times in one fight or in one round, there is no way, no way, that a fighter that got dropped wins the fight after round 2 when both fighters shared rounds all the way throught the 12th....No way...You gotta scored a shutout, or drop the same guy that dropped you 2 or 3 times

Marquez made it competitive in fight #1 and #2, but to me, he got whupped folks. Deal with it. There is no shame losing to Pacman twice. No shame at all. All these fighters will be some day in the Hall of Fame. They are in my hall of fame. It should be in yours also.

Now, you are bringing subjects that are way out of the question of what are we talking here. What Duran-Hearns, or Frazier-Foreman got to do with this topic? The 3 Amigos? We are discussing of who of the 3 was the best, and I said Barrera and with subjective and objective argument. To me, he was the best of the bunch.

My list of the top 100 greatest fighters is SUBJECTIVE, that means, in my own opinion, but trying to be as most OBJECTIVE as possible. It hurt me to exclude guys like Gene Fullmer, Tony Zale, Ismael Laguna, Flash Elorde, James Toney, Rocky Graziano, Harry Wills, Joe Jeannette, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Antonio Cervantes, etc.

And I was NEVER IMPRESSED, NEVER, with guys like Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Marquez nor Morales in my top 100 list in my view. They never impress me.

I just brought up some of your more memorable work. No need to explain yourself, I long ago stopped taking anything you say seriously. I read you for the humor.

Luis Rodriguez is probably your worst omission yet. He might be in my top 50. Lists are subjective, you're just overwhelmed by bias and an addle mind.

To you, Luis Manuel Rodriguez could be a top 50...to you...That is your OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I had Marquez 114-111 in the first fight, Pac 114-113 in the second & Marquez 116-112 in the third.

Elmer sets new standards of idiocy as he goes along. barrera was great and Marquez & Morales were not?

Pac/Marquez 3 is irrelevant to Marquez's resume because Elmer scored two fights for him?

Joe Frazier would have smashed George Foreman a few months earlier.

Thomas Hearns could never beat Roberto Duran at 147 pounds or any pressure fighter because he lost to Aaron pryor in the Amateurs.

And Fullmer, Marquez, DelaHoya, Trinidad, Morales, etc.. are all definitively outside of a list that doesn't exist.

All I can say is wow, and

Everything is a matter of opinion. You got Marquez winning the first fight? is beyond me to absorb and comprehend, but well, What can I do?

If you got dropped 3 times in one fight or in one round, there is no way, no way, that a fighter that got dropped wins the fight after round 2 when both fighters shared rounds all the way throught the 12th....No way...You gotta scored a shutout, or drop the same guy that dropped you 2 or 3 times

Marquez made it competitive in fight #1 and #2, but to me, he got whupped folks. Deal with it. There is no shame losing to Pacman twice. No shame at all. All these fighters will be some day in the Hall of Fame. They are in my hall of fame. It should be in yours also.

Now, you are bringing subjects that are way out of the question of what are we talking here. What Duran-Hearns, or Frazier-Foreman got to do with this topic? The 3 Amigos? We are discussing of who of the 3 was the best, and I said Barrera and with subjective and objective argument. To me, he was the best of the bunch.

My list of the top 100 greatest fighters is SUBJECTIVE, that means, in my own opinion, but trying to be as most OBJECTIVE as possible. It hurt me to exclude guys like Gene Fullmer, Tony Zale, Ismael Laguna, Flash Elorde, James Toney, Rocky Graziano, Harry Wills, Joe Jeannette, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Antonio Cervantes, etc.

And I was NEVER IMPRESSED, NEVER, with guys like Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Marquez nor Morales in my top 100 list in my view. They never impress me.

I just brought up some of your more memorable work. No need to explain yourself, I long ago stopped taking anything you say seriously. I read you for the humor.

Luis Rodriguez is probably your worst omission yet. He might be in my top 50. Lists are subjective, you're just overwhelmed by bias and an addle mind.

Also other guys that hurt me not to include in the top 100: Jem Driscoll, Owen Moran, Ken Buchanan, Harold Johnson, Jack Delaney, Young Corbett III, Jim J. Jeffries, Tommy Burns, Nicolino Locche, Nino Benvenutti, Lloyd Marshall, Cocoa Kid and others that don't come to my mind now.

Now you see why Oscar De La Hoya cannot enter the top 100, Goodnite Irene?