this is right. unless you long away from peak prime it is not possible to be a superior and then inferior to 'have number". the superior in boxing = decided in ring fight.
B******t, who in their right mind thinks Barkley's a better fighter than Hearns, who in their right mind thinks Norton's a better fighter than Ali.
Iran is better then Hearns. He beat him fair and square he is his superior. He’s not greater, but between just those two H2H he is the superior.
of course Barkley is better in 160 and 175 pounds. Hearns was started as welter weight so why is not a surprise ! Ali was best in 1960s. Norton never 'had Ali number' in 1970s. this is rotten example. Ali was superior heavy weight on peaks v peaks
I Barkley WSD J Kinchen T Hearns WSD J Kinchen / I Barkley tKO5 M Olajide T Hearns WUD M Olajide / I Barkley LSD R Duran T Hearns KO2 R Duran / I Barkley tKO3 T Hearns I Barkley wSD T Hearns compare of results does not = Hearns did against the others better. only with Duran. but this was " lightmiddle" & Hearns greatest show ever. even Hagler could not do with Duran like this. also Barkley close fight with a super Duran also. i saw Barkley winning on 2 points score but was close fight with Duran so nothing complain about. Barkley did a "fresher" Mike Olajide in less rounds too & this is additional to "H2H" of Barkley & Hearns = 2 wins for Barkley. so what is it makes Hearns is superior? At 160-175 weight classes! Barkley has edge on Hitman Hearns. obvious some disagree here on forum but this is how it appear when judge the records Hearns was starting in welterweight & light middle weight for his greatness wins with Kid Cuevas & Kid Benitez & Hand of Stone Duran! In 147 or 154 yes! In Blade Barkley classes, not superior to Blade Barkley!
He didn't do anything different in the 2nd half of the fight. Ali just started to slow down. If you agree with Futch that Norton tried to fight like Frazier, you must also agree with him when he says Norton wouldn't have been able to beat even the '70-'71 version of Ali, let alone pre-exile.
At the same time Barkley was hurt by Duran and knocked down by Olajide, who didn't come close to hurting Tommy. And had Barkley fought Virgil Hill, he would have been stopped by a counter left.. Styles make fights. Tommy was superior than Barkley.. That is easy to see.
They had opposite results against Duran and Hearns beat Hill. Hill's signature win came against Maske, who beat Barkley.
Hearns was superior to Barkley, that is what lingers about that, but Barkley did beat him twice. I do think ironically Tommy would have stopped Barkley had it been a 15 round fight, which is not what you say for a Hearns fight. Talking about the rematch.
Hearns is not great middleweight or great light heavyweight. His record is the weight classes named is not any better than Barkley really & when then factor the two loss to him. it is no sense to bring Virgil Hill in it when Barkley did not face Hill & also Hill was also clear favourite to win with Hearns. all the fights were upset fight & Hearns beat Hill at light heavyweight & then Barkley beat Hearns next fight, for 2nd time if we did "All Time Ranking ' in middleweight why put Hearns above Barkley? No reason to do it & In light heavyweight? Even less reason & The both of them Hearns & Barkley would rank low so not sure what can be complained to say Barkley is proved superior in the weight classes relevant. at the 160 and the 175 you can compare the record & see Barkley has edge over Hearns.
this is not relevant. Barkley was not good still for Maske . but also picking single result on other opponent cannot prove counter to the two result where Hearns lose to Barkley. maybe if it was huge volumes of Hearns wins in these weight classes we could say Barkley rank below him but there simply is not! Hearns record is "shallow' ""thin' when you take off the lower weight class!
