Iran Barkley - Underrated?

I dont like how he gets almost no credit for beating Tommy Hearns TWICE.

His first win over Hearns was heroic, an all-time classic come-from-behind victory and a brutal KO.

Funny how Sugar Ray Leonard gets applauded for coming from behind to TKO Tommy, and Hagler gets his dues for his desperate brutalizing of Hearns while bleeding from a cut that was threatening to cost him the fight.
Barkley, with his apparent limitations, does something similar and it gets dismissed as "luck", or much is made of Hearns' being "shot".

I dont like how when a supposed "great" fighter does something great it's recognized, but when a supposedly "non-great" does something great - which really amazes us - it quickly gets pushed away and rationalized as something "flukey".

Barkley beat Hearns TWICE. The second fight people forget that Barkley was seen as just as "shot" as Hearns. With the first fight being a "fluke" KO, Barkley wins the second on points over 12 rounds. That OUGHT to be enough to silence some critics, you would think.

Barkley also performed far better than he was supposed to against the much-hyped Michael Nunn, a very talented fighter. Barkley was serious business in the ring.

The Duran fight - a bona fide classic - could arguably have gone his way.
And the Benn fight is a great example of how the 3-knockdown rule can interrupt a competitive fight. I would have loved to have seen a rematch with those two, with no 3-KD rule, and an old school referee.

Barkley was a tough, hard-hitting, strong, serious fighter. A warrior. A serious fight for anyone out there.

 

I think the problem is that Barkley had some bad losses and would get hit so much. His definition of defense was breaking his opponents fists on his face.

 

He was responsible for showing us just how good James Toney was. But yeah it was a good win against Hearns the first time. Who up to the point he got KO'ed was looking really impressive. Just got careless. The 2nd fight I don't count too much as most could see Hearns was shot or close to.

 

leonard beat a prime tommy hearns. hagler and barkely beat a above his best weight hearns. Barkley also beat tommy a good 3 years after hagler destroyed him, and 8 years after leonard beat him.

 

Tommy was still a legitimate p4p candidate in '[88, though. And, he had just defeated a young Virgil Hill before losing to Barkley the second time. He still had a fair amount left in the tank, even if he was past his best.

 

I don't think Hearns was in his prime when SRL beat him. His best weight was 154. There just weren't many good fighters there at the time. He was still a beat at 160 when he lost to Hagler.

 

Well I never thought much of the middleweight hearns. It is the welterweight tommy hearns who was a deadly wrecking machine

 

Dont be fooled, Hearns best weight was 147lb he was in his prime when SRL beat him. Hearns is a top 5 welterweight of all time

 

He was in his prime for effectiveness with power, but not physically or ability wise. I'd probably opt for 154lbs when combining his experience, power, and all round ability.

 

I'm not saying he wasn't good, because he was great, but his body wasn't filled out. He was gaunt. At 154, He didn't lose. The only reason he didn't get that many knockouts during his time at 154 is because he was having hand problems at the time.

 

Had SRL and Hearns fought at 154, Hearns probably would have won.