Better win: Iran Barkley or Miguel Cotto?

There's a silly debate brewing in the General Forum about who is the greater fighter between Roberto Duran and Manny Pacquiao.

I'm of the opinion that Duran should be rated higher at this point, not only for his stunning Lightweight reign, his landmark victory over prime Ray Leonard, but maybe equally as notably his victory over the monstrous Iran Barkley. Of course, The Blade wasn't a particularly great fighter but he was world champion in 1989 and standing at 6'1 sporting a 74inch reach, could have been mistaken for a Light Heavyweight. The fight took place in the year I was born so I can only assume there was few people giving Duran a chance against the man who had knocked out Thomas Hearns.

Miguel Cotto has had an outstanding career under Bob Arum's Top Rank. He made waves as a Junior Welterweight before stepping up a division to face and beat some of the world's top 147lbs fighters. Zab Judah, Shane Mosley, Joshua Clottey all fell victim to the Puerto Rican. Manny Pacquiao, a former Flyweight, moved up to the Welterweight division and man handled Miguel Cotto. Some people expected it, whereas others didn't. It was a great victory for Pacquiao, alongside his others against Barrera in 2003 and Juan Manuel Marquez in 2008.

Which was the better victory, Duran's win over Iran Barkley or Manny's destruction of Miguel Cotto? It's not as easy as evaluating who was the better fighter, because there's a few other details we need to take into account.

Manny Pacquiao was arguably at the peak of his powers when he fought Miguel Cotto, who a year before had been destroyed by Antonio Margarito, and was coming off a less than satisfactory victory over The Grandmaster Clottey. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Cotto had slipped, if only my a slight margin. A great win, regardless. Manny, the smaller man, took it to the champion and knocked him down multiple times before the referee stopped it in the final round.

Roberto Duran was 37 years old by 1989, and was expected to have been a shot item by as early as 1982 after his losses to Laing and Benitez. Against all odds, Duran, a former Lightweight, beat a 6'1 Middleweight in Iran Barkley who was coming off a knockout over Hearns, and would go on to win titles in the Super Middleweight and Light Heavyweight division. I think I'm right in saying not to many people, if anyone, expected Duran to win the fight or even the last the distance.

Which was the better win?

 

Yeah but the extent to what Duran was undersized is so much greater than that of Pacquiao when he fought Cotto and Clottey. Iran Barkley was 6'1, that's not much smaller than Michael Spinks. Duran was only marginally taller than Pacquiao is now, and then when you consider he was pushing 38 and a former Lightweight? It's clearly the Barkley victory in my judgment, the performance itself was poetry in motion too.

 

Well I think in terms of achievement and the better win, it's Duran's victory over Barkley in both cases. Miguel Cotto had not looked great in his last three outings, it should be said, and Manny didn't look terribly undersized on fight night. Pacquiao was prime, Duran was at least 10 years past his. I believe all of these little details are factors when trying to evaluate what is the greater achievement between the two victories on show.

 

Well I hadn't factored in the 145lbs catchweight, I just think a 37 year old former Lightweight has no business beating the WBC Middleweight champion of the world who would go on to win a world title at 175lbs.

 

No weight should have been optimal for Duran at that stage in his career, that's the point in the first place PowerPuncher. The man was almost 38 years of age, far removed from the days he was sparked by Hearns at 154lbs. Done nothing since 1984 to suggest he'd have even lasted the distant with a big, hard punching Middleweight like Iran Barkley. Let's get things in perspective here.

Kalambay would beat all the Middleweights around today, no shame in being outboxed by the man that took McCullum and Graham's O.

I have the Barkley fight on DVD, and your brief explanation doesn't begin to tell the story. Nunn was arguably the best fighter on the planet at that time having decimated the aforementioned Kalambay, but Barkley braved through a rough first round and gave Nunn a tough, competitive fight.

The Benn fight was actually a back and forth affair where both men were hurt but on the 3 knockdown rule, the referee had no choice but to stop it.

When you look at a win you have to look how dominant a fighter is, but you also have to look at the size disparity, age disparity, and at what weight they are fighting at. Duran was not a good Middleweight, Duran hadn't been relevant for 5 years, and Barkley was a huge Middleweight, who would go on to achieve good things after the loss to Duran. Many people think Duran squeaked a decision but I had him winning by 5 points. Frankly, a 5'7 38 year old man knocking around and hurting a 6'1 Iran Barkley is more impressive than a 5'6 Pacquiao knocking around a 5'7 Cotto, who had always been a little delicate when it came to receiving.

 

Has absolutely no relevance to the point at all.

Pacquiao was fighting at his full potential against Cotto, Duran was a shadow of his former self and was still able to pull out a victory against all odds.

Of course it should. Beating Barkley is a great achievement because Duran was no longer a great fighter himself, his reflexes had shunned, his speed depleted. It took a monumental effort for him to overcome all of that.

A 6'1, power punching Middleweight who would later win a world title at Light Heavyweight was made for a 5'7 former Lightweight who was pushing 38 years of age? Calm down, PowerPuncher, let's not forgot what the odds were ahead of that fight. Duran wasn't supposed to win.

It's saying that Kalambay was a very talented fighter, so there's no shame in losing to him.

Regardless, it wasn't as one-sided as your initial post suggested.

Benn might well have been stopped himself with his fragile chin, but still, I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Nobody is claiming Barkley was a world class Middleweight, but he still should have had enough physical advantages to beat an old man who was severely undersized. Severely being the operative word. How are we not getting this?

James Toney was busted for doing steroids. Really bad fight to have brought up PowerPuncher, how can I possibly ignore that? Duran achieved his feat legitimately.

And that is where you're going wrong. It's a quality win because of the age and weight factor. :huh Seriously.

Again, completely missing the point.

 

:good It's Addie, I'm sure you knew.