BoxRec

Shane Mosley, or Juan Manuel Marquez?

Mosley, I think. Mosley will be remembered for defeating DLH twice, once in my book. However, officially he has two wins and Marquez is going to be remembered for a draw and close loss to Pac.

I tend to go with Sugar Shane. Again a legacy and opposition thing.

Dont get me wrong Marquez is a good fighter, just lacks something which I cant put my finger on.

bengulnaci1 wrote:I tend to go with Sugar Shane. Again a legacy and opposition thing.

Dont get me wrong Marquez is a good fighter, just lacks something which I cant put my finger on.

BALCO?

...i'm afraid each will be just a footnote..and that's assuming there are going to be any one even writing about this era....and i do not find this a happy thought..

I personally rate Marquez higher.

Mosley has close and questionable (or downright proven as cheating) wins over De La Hoya. Good as he was I think people see him as a better Lightweight than he was, no depth to his resume there. A great finds a way to beat Forrest (who I do rate to be fair), and he looked clueless at times against Winky, a lack of versatility Floyd made painfully obvious. Lost too many of his big fights.

JMM outboxed Pacquiao for the majority of rounds in their fights. He didn't have a great start to his career but once he was at world level he has put in some superb performances. Only man to knock out Casamayor, Diaz and Katsidis, win over Barrera, good performances in the Pacquiao fights and I believe (not 100%) the oldest ever Lightweight champion?

In technical skill JMM is miles ahead IMO. Shane may have the better chin and punch, but Marquez has great recovery. Career I think Marquez is ahead.

jaclem2 wrote:i'm afraid each will be just a footnote.

I agree with this, even though the sentiment is damning to the careers of both fighters.

The sad reality is, while they were bpth world-class fighters and top contenders, they just weren't the Number One of their time.

Crease wrote:

jaclem2 wrote:i'm afraid each will be just a footnote.

I agree with this, even though the sentiment is damning to the careers of both fighters.

The sad reality is, while they were bpth world-class fighters and top contenders, they just weren't the Number One of their time.

LOL, and that makes a footnote?

Scottrf wrote:I personally rate Marquez higher.

Mosley has close and questionable (or downright proven as cheating) wins over De La Hoya. Good as he was I think people see him as a better Lightweight than he was, no depth to his resume there. A great finds a way to beat Forrest (who I do rate to be fair), and he looked clueless at times against Winky, a lack of versatility Floyd made painfully obvious. Lost too many of his big fights.

JMM outboxed Pacquiao for the majority of rounds in their fights. He didn't have a great start to his career but once he was at world level he has put in some superb performances. Only man to knock out Casamayor, Diaz and Katsidis, win over Barrera, good performances in the Pacquiao fights and I believe (not 100%) the oldest ever Lightweight champion?

In technical skill JMM is miles ahead IMO. Shane may have the better chin and punch, but Marquez has great recovery. Career I think Marquez is ahead.

I believe Casamayor also stopped Katsidis also

IKSRTFO wrote:I believe Casamayor also stopped Katsidis also

Yeah, he did, but who do you rate higher?

JMM all day long. Even if Shane hadn't been stuffed to the gills with steroids. As he was, though, it's something of a no-brainer for me.

I have to say Marquez, I think Mosely was a little overrated at his best and in recent times has become a kind of Golden Boy promotions journeyman. And the steroids thing really does him no favours wheras I think Marquez is more regarded as a fighter's fighter, though I would rate him lower than Barrera and Morales.

Crease wrote:

jaclem2 wrote:i'm afraid each will be just a footnote.

I agree with this, even though the sentiment is damning to the careers of both fighters.

The sad reality is, while they were bpth world-class fighters and top contenders, they just weren't the Number One of their time.

Since there can only be a sole, "number one," I guess by this logic, either Mayweather or Pacquiao will be, "just a footnote," since one must rank behind the other, & therefore, isn't the number-1 of their time.

Marquez, easy choice for me. Had a solid but underpublicized initial reign at FW that included a thrilling bout wth Pacquiao, and followed that up with great wins over dangerous/difficult opponents at 130 and 135, each in more dominant fashion than ever before save Barrera which was a two-way shootout.

..goodnight...the number one was not MY reason for neither going down in history....boxing as it stands now is such a minor sport that the whole damn era probably won't be covered much, except as an arcane activity...much like stamp collecting......studied by a few as a specialized interest....those within this field will probably keep in touch with each other in whatever way anyone will be keeping in touch then.....as they won't have anyone among their friends or co-workers are whoever...who will know, or care, what they are talking about.

jaclem2 wrote:..goodnight...the number one was not MY reason for neither going down in history....boxing as it stands now is such a minor sport that the whole damn era probably won't be covered much, except as an arcane activity...much like stamp collecting......studied by a few as a specialized interest....those within this field will probably keep in touch with each other in whatever way anyone will be keeping in touch then.....as they won't have anyone among their friends or co-workers are whoever...who will know, or care, what they are talking about.

That is pretty hard to argue with. I used to watch Boxing with all my friends growing up and none of them bother with it anymore. That's why we are all on message boards to begin with.

Another thing to think about is how many people will be talking about Chuck Lidell, Cain Velasquez, etc. in the future. That sport is only going to get bigger.

Real close to call. I feel a purist would choose JMM, but Shane was a domestic name, even up to now (somehow). It would be his edge to be ranked higher than JMM.

tanibanana wrote:Real close to call. I feel a purist would choose JMM, but Shane was a domestic name, even up to now (somehow). It would be his edge to be ranked higher than JMM.

He beat De La Hoya, that's enough to make you a "legend" nowadays.

Mosley's reign at Lightweight is very good statistically but he didn't really beat any big names there.

His 2 wins over DLH are definitely his biggest achievements
2 wins over Vargas don't hurt although Vargas had slipped by then especially in the 2nd fight.
The Margarito KO was definitely a big win for him
he has several other reasonably noteworthy wins sprinkled in there but those are his biggest.

JMM's biggest accomplishments
The draw and the SD loss to Pacquiao are mainly what people gauge his talent by which is not quite fair considering all of his other accomplishments, but that's the way it is regardless.

His best wins are
The KO of Casamayor
KO of Juan Diaz
KO of Katsidis
his win over Barrera was a good one, but it was controversial to some.
I personally always liked his beating of Robbie Peden where Peden puked from swallowing so much of his own blood after the 10th.

I don't know it's a tough call they've both faced really tough competition, and have had success against most fighters they've fought. Right now I'd say Mosley has the better legacy by a hair, but JMM is still good enough that he can get some more noteworthy wins before his career is over. Where as Mosley's career as a big-name fighter is pretty much at it's end. I'd be SHOCKED if he was able to beat Pacquiao, but I expect Pac to put a pretty fierce beating on him and send him into the pasture.

jaclem2 wrote:..goodnight...the number one was not MY reason for neither going down in history....boxing as it stands now is such a minor sport that the whole damn era probably won't be covered much, except as an arcane activity...much like stamp collecting......studied by a few as a specialized interest....those within this field will probably keep in touch with each other in whatever way anyone will be keeping in touch then.....as they won't have anyone among their friends or co-workers are whoever...who will know, or care, what they are talking about.

jaclem mate, may I ask -- prognostications of doom aside -- who would you actually rate higher?

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Marquez, easy choice for me. Had a solid but underpublicized initial reign at FW that included a thrilling bout wth Pacquiao, and followed that up with great wins over dangerous/difficult opponents at 130 and 135, each in more dominant fashion than ever before save Barrera which was a two-way shootout.

I disagree with that statement. Marquez had great wins that can't be taken away from him but its not like he walked throught Diaz, Casamayor and to a small degree, Kadsides. Diaz and Casmayor were very tough and close fights for him. The rematch with Diaz was pretty dominant though. That said, if I have to choose, I rate Shane higher as he fought the better prime opponents. Casamayor Barrera and now Morales were pretty shot by the time he got to them. The sad part is he probably wouldn've beaten them and Hamed had he fougth them when the Fab 4 were relevant.

...mosley was so over-hyped from the very beginning ...those tv announcers were already saying he was on the path to equaling SRR , which gave him an impossible standard to live up to. that wasn't his fault though. but to me , he reminded me of a great gymnasium fighter...all the moves...decent chin...but never quite as good as he may have looked when in training. something seemed to be missing. good fighter though. i might go with marquez here....though i wouldn't argue either way.