Hopkins vs. Barkley

A 'prime' Hopkins- what? 28 or 30 years old, in his physical prime?- was struggling with Segundo Mercardo and going the distance with Lupe Aquino. The Hopkins of those years liked to stand and fight more and wasn't nearly the sneaky, tricky guy he became. Either way, a fight with Barkley is a war.
Barkley may bust up and bleed, but Hearns couldn't get him out and Hopkins wouldn't either. Iran would be on his chest fighting him all night, and Hopkins never liked that. He used to blow out guys like Gilbert Baptiste that he had a huge sized advantage over, but no size advantage over Barkley. And the sneaky tricky Hopkins couldn't fight all night like Barkley would make him do.
Hopkins never had the skill or the fast hands that Toney exhibited in beating Barkley. It would be a very hard fight for Hopkins, barring a cut, but I don't know that Barkley was ever stopped on cuts, and Hopkins couldn't punch like Benn. Hopkins may win but it would be trial by fire, no easy night.

 

Iran was stopped on cuts before he got the first Hearns bout. He had tons of scar tissue and tough fights under his belt by that time and was never matched softly.

Be that as it may, I think There's the possibility of Hopkins using his head or or something causing a cuts stoppage in this. He sure isn't tko'ing Barkley with punches, but he's got a shot against a bleeder and sweller like Iran.

An interesting part of the fight would be seeing Bernard absorbing that big left hook to the breadbasket Iran threw. I actually think that has a much bigger effect than any head shot Iran lands. I think it goes like the Mercado bout and is a tough night's work for Hopkins, but one way or another, i think he doesn't lose the fight. It might be an ugly win. A draw. A split decision. Even a clean win on the scorecards, but it just wouldn't be confused with say a Saad Muhammad title defense.