Benn vs Barkley - should it have been stopped?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Sardu, Mar 13, 2010.


Page 1 of 2
  1. Sardu

    Sardu RIP Mr. Bun: 2007-2012 Full Member

    3,581
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    In a wild, seesaw battle the two warriors - Nigel Benn and Iran "the Blade" Barkley waged war in a furious 1990 bout. After not penalizing Benn for hitting Barkley while he was on the canvas referee Carlos Padilla decides to halt the bout in the waning seconds of round one. Barkley, who landed many clean blows of his own even driving Benn across the ring at one point, is never granted a rematch. He deserved it though. The stoppage looked dodgy to me having just viewed it again on youtube. I think Barkley might have turned the tables and gotten Benn out of there if he had been allowed to continue.
     
    Sardu, Mar 13, 2010
    Sardu, Mar 13, 2010
    #1
  2. Sardu

    Sardu RIP Mr. Bun: 2007-2012 Full Member

    3,581
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    Barkley was delivering straight, clean punches whereas Benn was winging wild haymakers throughout the short fight. I still believe Barkley to be the better fighter. He ducked most of the wild punches but did get clipped and hurt obviously. Barkley also started slow against Duran and Hearns. I feel he would have gotten Benn out of there ala Hearns I had he made it past that first round. Padilla did a horrible job in that one and he was usually a good referee.
     
    Sardu, Mar 13, 2010
    Sardu, Mar 13, 2010
    #2
  3. Clinton

    Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,227
    6,482
    Jan 22, 2009
    I believe,but not certain,that the 3 knockdown rule was in effect.
     
    Clinton, Mar 13, 2010
    Clinton, Mar 13, 2010
    #3
  4. WhataRock

    WhataRock Loyal Member Full Member

    34,874
    18,042
    Jul 29, 2004
    Certainly was...the ref could do nothing about it, you almost see he didnt want to stop it but had to.

    Cant take anything away from Benn but that fight should have went on, and I think it would have continued to be enjoyable.
     
    WhataRock, Mar 13, 2010
    WhataRock, Mar 13, 2010
    #4
  5. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,815
    23
    Mar 28, 2008
    It probably shouldn't have stopped there, but what can you do? Three knockdown rule in effect and Barkley's balance was ****.

    Don't think Barkley would have won, for whatever reason he didn't seem to have his power or technique from what we saw, but it should have gone on.
     
    The Wanderer, Mar 13, 2010
    The Wanderer, Mar 13, 2010
    #5
  6. KOTF

    KOTF Bingooo Full Member

    13,448
    26
    Jun 2, 2009
    As others said, there was a 3 KD rule in effect and Padilla didn't wanna stop it as he motioned to the WBO official whether or not he should stop it
     
    KOTF, Mar 13, 2010
    KOTF, Mar 13, 2010
    #6
  7. Big Left

    Big Left Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,243
    20
    Dec 12, 2009
    correct.
     
    Big Left, Mar 14, 2010
    Big Left, Mar 14, 2010
    #7
  8. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    That is why it was stopped-the three knockdown rule. although I think had there not been a 3 knockdown rule Barkley probably could have won. Barkley has taken more punishment from Toney and Hearns than he did from Benn, but Benn knocked him down and Barkley was a little cold. I think Barkley could have come out for round 2 and knocked out Benn with a left hook. But with the 3 knockdown rule which both sides knew about Barkley was stopped in one round by Benn. Nevertheless, Benn was landing his hard punches very easily on Barkley.
     
    MAG1965, Mar 14, 2010
    MAG1965, Mar 14, 2010
    #8
  9. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    264
    Jul 22, 2004
    Bull**** Barkley would have won, he was getting murdered and would continue to get murdered, he was on shakey legs.
     
    PowerPuncher, Mar 14, 2010
    PowerPuncher, Mar 14, 2010
    #9
  10. atberry

    atberry Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,548
    19
    Sep 30, 2009
    That first punch Benn landed was unbelievable, Barkley wasn't right because of that.

    Benn did want Barkley again at 168 or 175 but it never happened. He thought he'd always beat Barkley because he could be hit. (He also said he'd beat Hearns because he'd only have to hit him)
     
    atberry, Mar 14, 2010
    atberry, Mar 14, 2010
    #10
  11. Hookie

    Hookie Affeldt... Referee, Judge, and Timekeeper Full Member

    7,054
    376
    Dec 19, 2009
    I remember thinking the ref lost control. Benn was better but Barkley deserved another shot just to clear any doubt.
     
    Hookie, Mar 14, 2010
    Hookie, Mar 14, 2010
    #11
  12. Sardu

    Sardu RIP Mr. Bun: 2007-2012 Full Member

    3,581
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    Thanks for responding to those who did. I forgot about the three knock down rule. Hard to believe this fight was almost 20 years ago!
     
    Sardu, Mar 14, 2010
    Sardu, Mar 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,129
    27
    Jul 24, 2004
    This whole fight seemed to be a mess. Barkley was shakey and probably would have lost even if it had gone on.
     
    Sister Sledge, Mar 14, 2010
    Sister Sledge, Mar 14, 2010
    #13
  14. turpinr

    turpinr Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,227
    1,249
    Feb 6, 2009
    benn would have killed barklay eventually had it been allowed to continue.
     
    turpinr, Mar 15, 2010
    turpinr, Mar 15, 2010
    #14
  15. frankenfrank

    frankenfrank Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,965
    67
    Aug 18, 2009
    true. and also benn was no hearns .
    it is simple : benn > sims > barkley
    reaons : benn > sims - h2h and the barkley fight.
    sims > barkley - h2h , the duran and hearns fights.
    back to the topic : the fight should have been stopped. definitely.
     
    frankenfrank, Mar 15, 2010
    frankenfrank, Mar 15, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 2