The better win: Spinks over Holmes I or Duran over Barkley?

Maybe it would be fair to say they were great wins against good fighters, rather than good wins over great fighters.

Great wins, because Duran was close to 100 fights by Barkley, and 17 years post his first world title, fighting several weight divisions above his prime division, against a highly motivated opponent who was on a winning streak and who had uncontraversially annihilated your man Hearns twice...

 

This is going in circles. You believe that Duran is overrated and dressed up in "excuses." I believe Duran is at times overrated on ESB Classic, but is underrated in the boxing world. You have offered nothing to convince me otherwise and I'm sure you feel the same way. Good luck.

 

Sure, but you should consider the rest of the physical factors if nothing else. In terms of historical significance, derailing a 48-0 Larry Holmes in pursuit of Marciano's record is big. I think what Duran did was harder, though.

 

I know what you mean. So many people seem to disagree with me on my Duran opinions. I always said he was great, just not as high as most rate him on here. I put my opinion on here because it is a message board on boxing, so that is what this site is for- just the opinion of boxing fans, But for Duran, he is held in very high regard by boxing fans- I do know that and respect it.

 

Beating Tommy was something Barkley did and I think he did well. He had a lot of heart and a good punch, but as a fighter he was not great, and a win over him by anyone cannot be regarded as a surprising win-especially any contender. His win streak was only Olajide and Hearns, and in both those fights Olajide knocked him down with a left hook and Tommy almost stopped him with bodypunches. Before that Kalambay outpointed Barkley.

Duran being 37 years old in 1989 was not ancient considering he fought another 12 years, and he fought at this division long enough to be comfortable. Believe me when I say when I heard this fight was signed I thought, now Duran will get his title since he can beat Barkley and his style. I knew he would win. I am not lying. I knew it. That simple. I didn't see how Barkley would knock out Duran. Barkley lands slow enough and one punch at a time will not stop Duran. It took many punches from Hearns over and over to stop Duran.

Duran took some good punches from Barkley and mainly that left hook which turned him around, but fact is had he taken it clean he would have been knocked out or at least hurt badly-and Duran did have a good chin which doesn't hurt. Going around with it he rode with it. That was not as clean a punch as it seems. Duran's body was tightened up on that punch and it moved his body, but not much his head. Almost like his whole body absorbed it and he rode with it by his body moving. Sort of like if a football player is pushed and he flies in the air and lands. That will be less damage than if he doesn't move much but takes the pressure in one spot. Duran was a master at that stuff. The style on the inside is Duran's fight and he is best at slipping punches and making them look like they landed clean, but they don't. He knows how to do that and I give him credit, and then when he slips punches on the inside, he is in range to give nice counters and there you have Barkley going down with Duran's right. But if a great fighter boxes Duran and takes him out of his element, he turns into a plodding fighter who is being counterpunched and he doesn't hit much. He can't. He isn't there to counter or ride with the punch since he is out of his element. He just becomes a plodding fighter who looks slow. Yet then he says he didn't train.

You do not beat Duran by punching with him, you beat him by moving and using speed and the ring an countering him and not let him counter. Fight your fight and don't get into brawling. Duran rides with punches very well on the inside and counters very well, and he is best if a guy stand in front of him and fights obviously.

Barkley came close to beating a master at his own game just on guts, but he didn't. You will not beat Duran by swinging wildly hoping for a homerun. He will regroup and land a counter and that gives him energy and momentum and Duran is all about momentum. Had Duran fought Nunn it would have been a lopsided decision or late round stoppage for Nunn. Had Duran fought Kalambay or Tate he would have lost easily. Had he fought Hearns in a rematch, Tommy would have knocked him out probably in the midrounds this time. You mention Hearns and Barkley beating him, that is the only thing Barkley did astounding in his whole career. That is why he is well known, otherwise he would have been a rather forgotten fighter who took too many punches.

I am giving Duran credit for being a great fighter and puncher who was fast and a great counterpuncher, but at the same time, his foot positioning was a little wide and if a guy moved and used the ring, Duran had trouble following. Look at Ray in the second fight. Never setting for Duran to fight his fight. Barkley was made for Duran even at 160. Duran was not even swelled up much. He wasn't hit much. Not like it seemed.
A guy with 5 losses and who lost many of his fights against good fighters cannot be seen as a great win in my mind.

 

Fair enough! I believe that everyone has the right to their opinion, but that does not compel anyone else to respect that opinion. The right to make it is one thing, the substance of that opinion is another thing altogether.

I would be curious to see your all-time, p4p top 20 though.

 

He really did. Damn, he must have been chuffed afterwards. Fighting such a fight against this much smaller, much older man and still coming out on the losing side. One of the most amazing perfomances, and fights, ever.

How Duran managed to turn that fight around after the first 8 is something I'll never understand. It almost makes you wonder if guys like Ali and Duran can spot that quality in each other and share a quiet understanding of some sorts.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Duran IMO. Both are special wins and you could argue for either based on the circumstances surrounding the fights/achievements, but for me the manner in which a win is gained is very important. Duran engaged his man, asserted his own magic on the fight, and out-thought and outfought his opponent. Spinks did not do so to the same extent. Therefore, Duran's win is better.

 

Valid point.

But for my money (easier way of looking at things) Holmes>>>>Barkley therefore Spinks' win was better.

Certainly debatable though.

 

Duran achieved what Spinks achieved already when he beat Leonard

 

Consider this. Had Spinks lost people would have said, "It's okay, he was never really a Heavyweight". If Duran lost, people would say, "A former Lightweight has never won the middleweight crown, Duran was very old with a lot of fights under his belt, 4 divisions above his best, and fighting a guy who, despite not being elite, was huge for 160lbs. No shame". You're way is to simplistic because Duran and Spinks were not fighting under the same circumstances.

 

:-( That's something I disagree. Imo both wins are on the same level and pretty much interchangable, depending what you like more.

 

True. I had Spinks edging the first Holmes fight, as I did with Duran.

Different circumstances? Definitely. But, like Duran at Middle, Spinks should never have been up at Heavy (despite his lanky frame) and, although I agree with Popkins analysis (i.e the manner of a victory changing perceptions) I feel Spinks gave sufficient enough effort, and I had him winning.

I think it was a better win. Harder fight for Spinks, better win.

But a very vailid debate:good

 

Eddie Davis vs Spinks