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

On the contrary, Duran had the harder fighter because Larry turned in a passive performance. I made the same point as Popkins in my earlier posts, had Duran boxed safety first and won a narrow decision, I'd be less inclined to hold the performance in such high regard as I do. I felt Duran by at least 3-4 points, that also factors in my decision here.

 

I agree with this. That's also why it's close.

A f'n war, and one of my favourite fights to watch.

 

Well, I may be in the minority but I had it 6-6. So yes, with me, the kd swayed it.

Harder was the wrong word to use. what is the right word.......well, mentally I feel Spinks would've had more worries going in. Holmes was an undefeated Heavyweight champ with seemingly all the advanatages. That's what I meant.

 

Touche

 

not even close. Holmes was an established fighter in 1985 and Leonard had just one title defense of his first title. And Ray won the rematch easily and Holmes lost the rematch and Spinks did it again.

 

Spinks got a gift in the rematch.

 

Agreed. I might re-score both tomorrow. Had Spinks edging the first but Holmes winning the second. Misplaced my individual round scoring many moons ago, have a big bag of Northern Lights and a weekend to myself so might well do that for the sticky scorecard thread.

 

I view the quote below, highlighted in bold and underlined, as one of the key differences in our position.

You argue that because Duran fought beyond 37yo and 100 fights, that he cannot be considered ancient and ring-worn in the Barkley fight despite being several weights north of his best division and 17 years post his first world title.

The alternative position - and the one many of us hold - is that by comparison to all other fighters in history the stats of 37, 100, and 17 are highly noteworthy and thus deserving of praise.

It is almost annoyingly contrary to claim the opposite.

 

I respect what you are saying, although I still do not see how the win against Barkley is that great. Guys now are fighting at 38 like Mosley and 33 like Mayweather. Hopkins is 45, and most of his great wins have now come after the age Duran was when he fought Barkley. It is not common, but it can be done and is being done. 37 is not that old in retrospect, although you will say Duran fought 100 fights, yet I think it was more like 85 at that time maybe 90.

So your argument or point is to make Duran as old and worn out as you can, so that beating a mediocre fighter like Barkley is considered great or outstanding, yet if Duran was 27 it wouldn't be that great a win? Duran was still as good as he was going to be at that age. If he was old and washed up how can anything help his legacy, expecially in light of the fact that he lost to Benitez and Hearns and Hagler years before when it mattered.

Thomas Hearns beat Virgil Hill when he was nearing 33 and Virgil was 27, and he outboxed him and won a UD. Virgil was undefeated and had 10 title defenses. Your argument is that even though Virgil was miles better than Barkley, that since Duran was this old guy at 37 and not very good, that if he beat a guy who was not a great champion that means it is a better win than Hearns. See how this is rather selective and it bends facts in favor of Duran?

 

Hill was not miles better than Barkley, he was a notch or two above him.

Barkley was a more than the sum of the parts gritty contender.Relatively limited but very dangerous as your man Hearns will no doubt tell you.I've little doubt he could give someone like Hill a tough fight.

Hill was a splinter champ that fought mostly sub-par opposition in his home state with every favour going his way in each fight.He was an uninspiring champ and a choker circa the Hearns fight.I actually think he got better after it, where Barkley at least was at his best.Hill was actually MORE one-dimensional than Barkley despite his superior technique, incidentally.

 

Hills competition at light heavy was no worse then Duran's at lightweight in the 1970s. But Duran was a puncher and looked more dominant winning, but Hill had some good wins. Hill is better than Barkley. 25 championship fights and 15 title defenses or so at lightheavyweight. Undefeated when Hearns beat him and 10 defenses. Barkley had no defenses when Duran beat him and 5 losses. More than a notch better. Hill was better than anyone Duran faced from 72-78 and Hearns beat him when he was almost 33.

 

I look at it this way: Forget for a second that Duran and Spinks were the opponents for Barkley and Holmes' respective losses. Is beating Holmes in his bid for 49-0, an ATG with ample championship experience who was clearly top dog at Heavyweight, a bigger win than beating Barkley, who wasn't the best Middleweight at the time, in his first title defense? That part's not even debatable.

Now, are the details about the victorious fighters enough to swing the balance in Duran's favor? He was an old, blown-up, past-prime fighter, but also one with experience at the weight for a couple of years. Spinks was obviously younger and fresher, but it was his first fight moving up facing a vastly superior opponent who had 20 pounds on him just 3 months after vacating his Light Heavyweight titles. I know there's justifiably plenty of Duran fans backing him in this thread, but I can't see how not choosing Spinks' victory over Holmes is giving Michael the fair shake. By my criteria anyways. :thumbsup

Both great wins, but Spinks-Holmes is on a higher level for me.

 

That's precisely why it isn't close for me. It was a past prime performance against a fighter of the caliber of Barkley.

Duran's victory is an absolutely incredible personal achievement for him and his legacy--no denying that. But that's relative only to him and being past his prime, not the bigger scheme of things. It wasn't a fight between two respective ATG fighters in (relatively)top form with the all-time heavyweight undefeated record and championship on the line. Holmes-Spinks I hits every last criteria mark.

 

FFS this Durantardation is going too far, Barkley was an effing gatekeeper, pretty much every decent MW beat him before and after, Holmes was an ATG, theres no comparison

 

Yeah.

Holmes is an ATG champion.

Barkley wasn't even a real world champion.