Do people really think that Duran was "shot to s**t" vs Barkley?!

If he was shot to **** he wouldn't have won. pretty simple really and i'm suprised would argue with that. He was miles past his prime of course but was able to sum up one final great performance but still had enough left in him to do that.

 

A great fighter has always one big performance left.

Anyway, I love when Barkley hits him and Duran makes like a 360 degree turn but doesn´t go down. Badass.

 

I personally rate this as his most impressive win, I know I'm in the minority but when you watch that fight it's almost magical how he stays in front of Barkley avoids many of his shots and just keeps firing back.

It really is a work of art, that fight, and really hilights Duran's defensive skills.

I usually also reference this fight to anyone who isn't a boxing fan and wants to watch what the sweet science is all about. It clearly illustrates what the concept of boxing is, which is hit without getting hit.

 

I didnt vote cause i think he was kind of in between the options you had...... Duran was still a very good fighter and gave a great performance.. But he clearly had lost a step.. If the Barkley had faced the Duran that gave Hagler all he wanted and beat Moore, the Barkley might have gotten stopped and it would not have been razor close either. Even the Duran that fought Hagler,Moore,Benitez had lost a step compare to the Duran that beat Leonard and Palomino.

 

Sigh....Duran was way past it, shot? I dont know, but truth is Barkley just wasn't that good. He had a great fighter's number.

 

What's truly impressive about Duran's performance that night was that Barkley never looked better. He obviously wasn't "shot", but he was obviously far past his prime. It's one of those Griffith/Monzon II type performances, where one fighter hasn't been looking much for a while, is written off by most, and turns in one final hurrah.

 

That´s why he managed to become a three division champ and ended up fighting at hw. Because he wasn´t that good.

 

b/c he had a great fighter's number. He wasn't that good. And youre bringing up his heavyweight fights :rofl.... Barkley v. Coetzee was the worst fight I have ever seen, and youre talking to a guy that's seen about 15 John Ruiz fights.

 

Like almost everyone else would say, definitely not shot, but waaaaay past his prime. Just one last great performance.

 

Hmmmmm shot to ****.

Hard to say, depends what you class as shot.

Was it the same duran who battered his way through every active lightweight, no. Was it the same duran who took the great sugar ray leonard out of his gameplan in the greatest victory of all time, no.

Was he anywhere near that level, no.

It was a competitive fight, and shot fighters don't usually have competitive fights, but let me ask this. Rewinding back to the 90's. Larry holmes had a very competitive fight with mccall. Could have got the nod. Do we class him as shot?

I'm digressing slightly anyways. I'm discussing the phrase shot.

He certainly was not shot to ****. Shot to **** is iron mike tyson being smacked around by mcbride, it is holyfield being smacked around by williams.

 

Way past his prime and close to 35 lbs above his best weight, but I think he had a little bit left in the tank.

 

This ^