Since there are so many Duran vs Mayweather threads right now, I thought I'd see what you guys think about how Floyd would do at 160 vs Barkley. Bear in mind Duran won at age 38 and put Barkley to the canvas. Floyd is 32 so should be in better condition than Roberto at 38. How would this one go?
Mayweather certainly has enough skill to outbox Barkley but I don´t think he would. Barkley is too big, too strong. Barkley would win a decision. Floyd would win some rounds and be competative but Barkley´s size, strength and power would make him too cautious too win. He would not stand his ground with the Blade like Duran did.
I'd have to go with Floyd.sambu kalumby more or less shut out prime barjkley and Money is 20 times better at that sort of thing.Barkley only did well against nunn because michael was on cocaine.
Yeah, Nunn really didn't take Barkley seriously in that fight, although in the first round, Nunn gave him a hammering. Kalambay against Mayweather would have been a more intriguing match-up.
We've never seen Mayweather at 160, although we might if he fights Martinez, but I imagine he could win a decision over Barkley. He might have some rough moments though because Barkley towers over him at 6'1, coming in at around 175 pounds and he never had problems with eating punches in order to land his own.
No, not for me.I think we need to go up to the likes of Evander Holyfield to find a challenge for old cashflow.
Forget about Holyfield, Mayweather wouldn't get past a '88 Michael Nunn. Many great Welterweights of the past all moved up to 160lbs an campaigned there with relative success, no reason why Floyd can't be subjected to said match-ups.
Nunn was an overhyped fraud.He wouldn't be competitive with Money, christ he couldn't even shoulder roll or throw check hooks.
Alas that is what happens when you can't throw check hooks. Who do you guys think is the better defensive fighter?.Mayweather or Whitaker?.