Win you rate higher....Duran over Barkley or Hearns over Hill?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BENNY BLANCO, Feb 10, 2010.



  1. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,131
    24
    Jul 24, 2004
    Duran-Barkley was a very emotional fight, and a memorable one, so most fans will choose this. Barkley had lead feet, lead hands and was easy to hit, though, so it very hard to rate him more than a glorified Gatekeeper with a big lucky punch. Barkley was the weakest MW champion at that time and, any other MW champion would have beaten Duran.
    Hill was a very good fighter who was in his prime and tough to beat. He was very well respected at that time, He never ducked anybody, and was undefeated at that time. Hearns boxed his ears off. I have to go with Hearns because he fought a better fighter, and made him a 5 division champion
     
  2. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,131
    24
    Jul 24, 2004
    :lol: I hate that song.
     
  3. abraq

    abraq Active Member Full Member

    1,376
    16
    Sep 17, 2007
    Duran. Had to overcome huge physical disadvantages which was not the case in the other instance.
     
  4. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,131
    24
    Jul 24, 2004
    this thread is not really fair to Hearns. Even though it's obvious that Hill was a much better fighter ans bigger threat, the Duran fight was an action-packed, emotion filled fight with an overachieving crude slugger. Duran went life-and-death with a bigger guy, so it's obvious he's going to get the votes, even though logic say's Hearns made the bigger accomplishment.
     
  5. Jorodz

    Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

    21,677
    48
    Sep 8, 2007
    very reasonable post:good there's no disputing that hill was the better fighter at the time between he and barkley and the more dangerous, respectable opponent. however, barkley i think was more dangerous to duran than hill was to hearns. but you make a very good argument as to barkley's place in the grand scheme (though he did have some decent wins)
     
  6. Mantequilla

    Mantequilla Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,964
    56
    Aug 26, 2004
    Duran had been fighting a lot longer, had more fights and in general should have been a lot further gone than Hearns.

    Barkley is the greater accomplishment imo, and the fights aren't that comparable.


    Hill was seen by a lot of people as an unspectacular paper champ choker after the Hearns fight incidentally, if you want to do the limited slugger thing with Barkley.Both of which are true to an extent, but shouldn't take away from either win too much.
     
  7. Duodenum

    Duodenum Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,604
    250
    Apr 18, 2007
    This thread really isn't fair to Tommy. Even before Hearns dethroned Cuevas, he was being projected as a potential four division champion, capable of eventually winning the light heavyweight title. For him to have surpassed early expectations, he would have needed to go from 147 to heavyweight contention like Walker did, and at least draw for a share of that title like Mickey did with Sharkey. Hill was a terrific win, but did it truly transcend what was originally expected of Tommy?

    Barkley defeated Hearns both before and after losing to Duran, and eventually came off the deck to stop and retire Coetzee at HW. Roberto went far beyond what I remember anybody projecting for him while he was the world's greatest lightweight. Nobody was suggesting he might one day stake a claim to Monzon's title, let alone at age 37.

    While Hearns was brilliant against Hill, it's also true that Virgil was kind of dismal in losing, even by his own admission, while Hearns was jivin' an' jukin' his way to victory. The Blade was sensational against Duran though, a fact sometimes overlooked. He was better against Roberto than Buchanan or Davey Moore had been. Critics claim that he won in Montreal only because SRL chose to use the wrong tactics, while Hagler was overly cautious and gave him too much respect. I don't recall any such claim being made for Duran-Barkley. Roberto floored and beat a triple crown champion at the top of his game.
     
  8. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher VIP Member Full Member

    42,732
    240
    Jul 22, 2004
    Tough 1, but I think it has to be the Hill win. Hill is the better fighter with something like 20 title fights. Barkley is considered worse but he ofcourse beat the same Hearns twice although he did lose to Maske who Hill beat. Overall Hill has the better skillset with the much deeper resume and quality wins of his own. Barkley outside of the Hearns fights hasnt got any quality wins

    After Hearns beat Hill he picked up 2 belts and had many successful defenses, after Barkley lost to Duran, he went on to lose to Nunn and only lasted 1 round with Benn.

    Before Hill lost to Hearns he was undefeated, Barkley had lost a wide UD 18months prior to his Duran loss.

    I saw 1 poster arguing Hill was made for Hearns, will Barkley was made for Duran too in that he was slow and easy to hit. Hearns may have lost to a LHW banger, but Duran would lose to a MW slick cookie, so it goes both ways
     
  9. ricardoparker93

    ricardoparker93 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,831
    8
    May 30, 2009
    Hill is the better fighter and Hearns fought a great fight to beat him. However Tommy always had the dimensions to move up all the way to light heavy, although this shouldnt take away from his performance. Duran however was a natural lightweight beating a big middleweight champ at 38!

    So although few would argue that Barkley is a better fighter than Hill, Durans victory is better IMO.
     
  10. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,853
    5,365
    Feb 26, 2009
    That is what I think. This was thirty pounds higher than when Thomas Hearns fought Cuevas and against a guy who was undefeated and had 11 title defenses. The only reason Barkley was even champion for Duran was because he beat Hearns. Barkley lost more in those years than won against the top guys and his name recognition is because of a lucky punch against Hearns. Hearns vs. Hill is much much much better but the people on ESB seem to have some bias towards Duran so I think the vote will be 50 to 5 in favor or Duran, but Hearns beating Hill was much better and anyone who is honest will admit this.
     
  11. Mantequilla

    Mantequilla Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,964
    56
    Aug 26, 2004
    Bunch of hacks around here nowadays,
     
  12. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,853
    5,365
    Feb 26, 2009
    Same way I see it. Hearns beating Hill was a huge accomplishment. Hill was champion for 4 years and Hearns had been going up and down in weight and he moved up and took the title by easy 12 round decision. I don't think the two fights compare. Hearns beat a really great undefeated champion.
     
  13. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    141
    Mar 4, 2009
    Barkley fought the fight of his life against Duran while Hill put up a lousy effort.

    However I won't take anything away from Hearns's victory but I just don't know how great Hill truly was. He consistently proved himself better than the average contender of the day but failed to beat any of the greats. Atleast Barkley rose to the occasion against Hearns even if people call those wins a fluke. Barkley beat the same Hearns that Hill lost to right afterwards.
     
  14. Mantequilla

    Mantequilla Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,964
    56
    Aug 26, 2004
    Hill blatantly choked against Hearns.

    One of the worst chokejobs since Ronnie Harris against Hugo Corro.


    The amount of people picking it over Duran Barkley is dismaying.
     
  15. MAG1965

    MAG1965 VIP Member banned

    34,797
    58
    Dec 1, 2008
    Tommy beating Virgil was the better win. This poll will prove how Duran gets overrated for wins which are not that great. Anyone here knows that the Hearns win over Hill is better and that Hill was a HOF LtHW with near 25 title fights. Barkley lost to Kalambay and Nunn and Benn all in the same time span he lost to Roberto. So this poll actually proves the unfairness and overrating of Duran. Barkley is not a better win. Better fight but not a better win. Hearns outboxed Hill which was not an exciting fighter, but the win was exceptional.