Which was the more impressive performance? Does Hank get more credit for what he accomplished here or does Roberto?
Duran-Barkley. Armstrong was in his prime and fighting against a man he had already beaten, although that man went onto be a force at middleweight.
True, but wasn't Garcia a more formidable middleweight than Barkley? He'd just taken out Fred Apostoli, Walter "Popeye" Woods and Lloyd Marshall (twice) leading up to the "draw" fight with Armstrong. Armstrong was considerably smaller, fighting a guy who appears to bring more to the table than Iran and battling in a style that would appear to favor his opponent. Just things to think about.
Leading up to the Duran fight, Barkley had lost to Kalambay, been floored, badly cut up and almost finished in beating Hearns by a "hail Mary" shot and floored (if memory serves) in beating Michael Olajide. Compare that to what Garcia had accomplished leading up to the draw fight with Armstrong. Kinda puts a bit more perspective on it :smoke
I'd say that Garcia's reputation at middleweight was mainly based on that one performance against Fred Apostoli though, much like Barkley's when he knocked out Thomas Hearns.
This topic has come up before, and opinions are always divided. There's a lot of factors to consider here, going in all sorts of directions. -Garcia was a genuinely highly regarded fighter, whereas Barkley was thought of as just a "good journeyman" who managed a desperation KO of Hearns. -Armstrong was still in or around his prime, while Duran was well past his. -Duran was a genuine 160 pounder by that time, whereas Armstrong weighed only around 140 pounds. -Barkley was a genuine "big" MW, while Garcia was an ex-WW and natural jr. MW. -Duran actually won his fight, while Armstrong was held to a draw. ...but... -Many people thought Armstrong deserved the decision over Garcia, while there are some who think Duran was lucky to get the nod over Barkley, or at least the fight could've gone either way. Personally, I'd probably give the edge to Armstrong here, given the weight disparity and the fact that Garcia was a better fighter than Barkley IMO. But I suppose it simply depends on what factors stand out more in your mind.
On the contrary, I'd Garcia's rep was built gradually through wins over Lloyd Marshall and Walter Woods culminating with his dominant performance over Apostoli, and then further enhanced with a successful title defense against Glen Lee. Also, Garcia's rep was based on a genuinely impressive and dominant performance (not just the win itself) against Apostoli, who was widely considered to be the unofficial #1 MW in the world, whereas Barkley had been made to look like the flawed/limited journeyman he was considered prior to landing that desperation punch on Hearns. I'd say it's also noteworthy that Garcia had been considered a genuine world class fighter for at least 2-3 years before winning the MW title, even if it had been at a lower weight.
A nice summation here:good I'd also add that the tricky Duran had a mutable style that could help him adapt and overcome the hazards of fighting bigger, stronger men. Armstrong just had one way--forward, all guns a-blazing. It seems as if it would be a suicidal strategy(think Norris-Taylor on a grander scale) against a guy who knocked out someone like Apostoli and was beating the better middleweights in the division. Would Duran have beaten Barkley if he fought him in the same manner that he fought Ken Buchanan? At any stage? Ehhh....that's a sketchy one...
Fred was favored to whale on Garcia by all but Johnny Ray, one of boxing wiliest, who knew Fred was by then was ruined as a fighter by his Billy Conn.
