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

I remember this fight. I don't think anyone said Duran was shot at that point.

However, most people thought Duran too small, too old and too past his best to lift the title from big hitting Barkley, who had just knocked out Hearns in 3 rounds.

Barkley was the bif favorite before the fight but some gave Duran a chance based on his skill and experience because Barkley was such a crude boxer. However I don't think anyone quite expected Duran to turn in such a worthy and competetive peformance.

All things considered its probably one of the most remarkable wins in the sports history. What a legend.

 

Shot to **** is a bit of a hyperbole, but there is no doubt Duran's best years were behind him and he was fighting far out of his best weightclass. So yes I'd agree with the poster's premise that Barkely lost a fight he should have won.

 

His whole point was; how the **** can anyone ever rate toneys win over barkley

Like I said he exaggerated how bad Duran was at that point, but nevertheless Duran was 37 years old, over his best weight, and hadn't beaten a name fighter in over 5 years. The fact Barkley was beaten by Duran at point and at that weight doesn't reflect well upon him.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDJ2cCpR4o[/ame]

That is a shot Roberto Duran, not the one that showed up against Barkley. The one that showed up against Barkley was a fat old man who could still fight.

 

"miles past his prime" is basically "shot to ****" unless you wanna get pedantic. It's not like that was the primary point of Headbanger's post

come to think of it, this wasn't thread worthy at all

 

Duran was considered shot after he lost to some no name after the second Leonard fight. He went on to show how those sorts of blanket statements never make sense. Great fighters defy the odds again and again.

 

I won't speak for him, but like I've said many times, Duran wasn't, in my opinion, shot. However Barkely certainly had no excuse for losing that fight, and Duran did look like **** against pretty average oppenents leading up that fight. So let that be the end of that.

On another note, you can't talk **** about somebody for reducing arguements down to petty ****, when you your self made a thread about another thread.

 

Duran was not a shot fighter when he fought Barkley, but he was not even near the level as when he fought Hearns and Hagler, which was his last time as a real contender. Barkley was a case of a great style matchup for Duran. A guy who does not move at all standing in front of Duran is what Duran loves.

 

:deal

 

so you think barkley was tailor made for duran and not for hearns? Barkley was a boxer puncher
Not a one dimensional fighter. He was not known as a puncher either.

 

yes I think he was made for Duran. His style of standing there and punching and Duran being shorter worked well for Duran, and the fact is he was a hard puncher but he was no John Mugabi. I knew when the fight was signed that Duran had a chance to win a title when all the other guys he could have fought he would not have won a title. Nunn, Kalambay,Hearns,McCallum would have all beaten him at the time. Barkley was the one guy who I knew probably wouldn't. Duran's right hand could not miss. Barkley had power, but Duran was great on the inside with slower guys like Barkley. Barkley was not one dimensional. but he was not much of a boxer. He had a decent jab but not an effective one with a guy the caliber of Duran. The guys who beat Duran easily were the fast elite guys like Hearns,Benitez and Leonard. Barkley was not one of them. And look at the guys who beat Barkley all around that time. Nunn,Kalambay,Benn. etc etc. Olajide almost had Barkley knocked out, and Tommy almost got a 4th round knockout over Barkley with bodypunches. Barkley was not great, but he was very good and had a lot of heart. Good win for Duran, but it does not erase the Hearns and Benitez losses. How could it?