Better win: Iran Barkley or Miguel Cotto?

I think they're extremely close, but until it's proven to me that Cotto really was "ruined" by the time he got to Pacquiao, I think Pacquiao's win over Cotto is better. Barkley was a very good fighter, no doubt, but on an all-time pound for pound level, Cotto was better overall.

I'm still not of the belief that Cotto is actually out of his prime. Yes, he's become a bit less aggressive since the Margarito fight (which I think is in great part because he gassed out a bit in that fight, and he's trying to conserve his energy more now), and his skin has definitely become more prone to cuts, but the Cotto I saw in the Clottey fight was basically the same Cotto I've seen in about 15 other fights. And frankly, he looked like the same Cotto in the Pacquiao fight as well. The one pound extra he took off didn't seem to have an effect, at least from the fight I was watching.

Barkley was good, but more limited than even Cotto. He lost a wide decision to underrated Kalambay not long before fighting Duran, and he lost closer decisions to Nunn and Benn after losing to Duran. Outside of Tommy Hearns (who was dumb enough to get lured into a gunfight in his first bout, and who was about 60% of himself for the second bout), Barkley never beat anyone particularly good. A few guys who fall into the 'decent' category, but he generally lost to fighters who were good. What helps the case here is that he actually was much physically larger than Duran, which wasn't the case for Pacquiao.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure Duran's win over Barkley isn't closer to Pacquiao's win over Clottey than his win over Cotto.

Still, I can see where someone would rate Duran's win as being better, I just don't agree.