Better win: Iran Barkley or Miguel Cotto?

Can't see that happening at all myself. Floyd doesn't have the weight behind his punches that would be necessary to deter Pac. Pac's chin and resilience are superb.

For someone with your boxing ethics/principles (which are much like my own I think), I find this a bizarre and horrible statement.

Yeah, boxing is just too unpredictable. I never let myself forget that I thought Pavlik was going to beat B-Hop. Shameful stuff.

Thanks man, will do

 

Ludicrous 'logic' from PP. And a ludicrous thread.
Pac is a bona fide all time great.Already in the pantheon of arguello,holyfield,hopkins,jones and such like. But he hasnt quite yet joined the rareified air of guys like leonard,hearns,whitaker quite yet. Beating 'may' could get him there.
But lets not downgrade the upper 'aristocracy' of duran,robinson,ali,monzon and such like,quite yet.
Somebody please youtube or show a picture from the duran barkley fight to show the ****ing cartoonish size difference between duran and iran. Then compare pac with cotto,i suggest for people of a fair mind this is all one has to really see,the rest is common sense.

 

I don't think he would. I don't think a fat Juan Manuel Marquez impersonator would either.

True.

I thought Hopkins's stamina was gone after the Calzaghe fight. I thought he had finally succumbed to Father Time. I watched the 1st Pavlik-Taylor fight, and thought that Pavlik would be young enough, relentless enough, hungry enough and busy enough to take control in the last third of the fight and win it down the stretch. I simply didn't anticipate the way their styles would mesh, I didn't realize how easily B-Hop, even in his past-prime state, would be able to control Pavlik. Yes, I got that one totally wrong.

 

:good

I also got Mosley-Margarito wrong. Abysmal.

 

This is a really tough one. I think Cotto is the superior fighter and Pacquiao's win was far more dominating than Durans. However he was at the peak of his powers and the size difference wasn't as pronounced... I'll go with Durans victory despite the fact that Cotto is the better fighter IMO.

 

I really am shocked, let me emphasize shocked, that this vote is this close in the Classic Forum. To me, these wins are of a completely different class. Not even remotely comparable. I think Pac's win over Cotto is one of the wins of the decade 2000-2009, one of Pac's two top wins along with Barrera 1, and a genuinely brilliant victory considering his weight history. But - come on! Duran winning the middleweight title 17 years after winning the lightweight strap - that is an ATG achievement to rank alongside more or less anything in boxing history.

 

Barkley wasnt a real champ though only the weakest ABC titlist, and no one rated him close to the best. Leonard was lineal, Nunn/Kalambay/McCallum the better titlists. We saw what happened when Duran faced a world class MW in Leonard a few months later when he got his ears boxed off

 

OK, winning one of the major world middleweight title belts 17 years after winning the lightweight title is not a historic achievement then. :good

 

As an aside, i don't think Cotto is any better than Barkley...he really is a pretty ordinary fighter.barkley was no great shakes, but he could often give morethan the sum of the parts performances, and had huge physical presence and power at the weight, Cotto isn't even that much better technically and is a less than the sum of the parts fighter who flags badly against physically capable opposition.Barkley had skills that looked like Hilario zapata in comparison to the toiler Margarito.

Not trying to pump up Duran's win here btw i can't be bothered with the Duran topics anymore to be honest, just emphasising my feeling of the overestimation of todays Welterweights.Cotto is no better than the hugely hyped overrated Olajide that barkley beat...difference is Olajide was fighting in a talent laden division and not a barren wasteland where he could feast of ancient former P4Pers and ordinary opponents left right and centre.

And Duran Leonard 3 was a disgaceful non-event with both fighters clearly in it for the money only and going through the motions, instead of taking on some worthy fights.

 

While I this question is debatable I have to say that by using the Duran's peoples argument you could say Pacquiao's win over Sasakul was just as good as Duran's win over Barkley.

1. Pacquiao was extraordinarily pre-prime, roughly as pre-prime as Duran was post-prime.
2. Sasakul was probably roughly the same level P4P as Barkley, who though brave was not special.
3. Sasakul was The Flyweight champion, not just a beltholder.
4. Though Pacquiao was losing the fight he came back to KO Sasakul, like Duran did to get the knockdown.

People dismiss Pacquiao's Flyweight stuff often because he didn't do much else down there and was so clearly pre-prime, but I think it's a little silly contradictory to give so much credit for a tremendous, but one-off win for Duran.

Just something that annoys me, I tend to think prime performances take precedence which is why I would say the Cotto win is better.

 

I never understood the deal with Barkley... he got lucky against Hearns THATS IT! He got KO'd in one round by a wild nigel benn, wooped by James Toney and beaten by a 37 year old lightweight! I mean if Barkley had not landed that hail mary punch his career would have been nothing really. Whereas Cotto has fought and beaten many contenders, lost twice ( once in dubious circumstances) and beaten a fair few champs. I dont think he is comparable.