Iran Barkley vs Billy Joe Saunders At MW

Lets be honest- Hearns was drilling him before getting attacked. Hearns went in to end it and got caught- happens in boxing.
Up until then Barkley wasn't even in the fight.
And lets not forget a close to forty Duran DROPPED Barkley.

 

Barkley KO4. Too much size, power & pressure for Billy 'The Silly Hoe' Saunders.

 

What's to avoid, apart from wasting one's time with the kind of blanket BS that assumes "

This content is protected

"?

Tell me, what does "

This content is protected

" look like, in real terms?


Are you really that surprised to have been called out for trolling?

 

Its true. BJS can look and study everything that Nunn did in the ring. Nunn couldn't do that with boxers 30 yrs before him. He could even hire Nunn and Nunn's trainers and suck what knowledge they had dry.

Therefore, what you see from BJS is what he has decided to use and display as part of his repertoire. If he wanted Nunn soft flurry's to the head or anything else Nunn did he could that to by watching, breaking it down and incorporating it. He chooses not to. Think about it.

You have edited my post. What you write is not what I write. Here's what I write.

Big difference isn't it. What it means is that 30 years of boxing evolution has developed the sport into a better sport. These refinings can be hard to see but they exist. Sometimes, its just that more modern fighters don't do the risky things that the older, more primitive fighters did.

When I write 'potential explosiveness' it means that BJS, because of his modern training could be explosive, its a 'potential', but its risky so he holds it back. Fighters didn't do plymometrics, proper lifting, kettlebell training or use modern sports science protocols like Olympians back in Nunnn's era. Your not reading and learning from what I'm writing because you are resistant to accepting that boxing is always improving, like technology, medicine, every other sport etc.

Why am I trolling?

I only writing what the world knows. Its all good to love the old time guys but they're semi-pros and most of them would struggle to be contenders at best in today's era. The sporting world is developing and changing every year, but in the Classic section, boxers from the 1910's have a chance against boxers from 2020's. And you say I'm 'trolling'. 30% of the regular posters on this sub-forum are delusional enough to be committed into state care for their own good, especially a couple of the older ones. Not naming names you know who you are.

 

Interesting. You initially asserted that BJS has included Nunn's techniques, which more than implies they already form part of his repertoire. Now you're pitching these as something he could incorporate, if he chose to.

Either way, there's no need to think about it any further. The above makes major assumptions, which you cannot validate.

I abbreviated your post and quoted you correctly. You're saying 30 years of progress has led to boxers being potentially more explosive - it was clearly not difficult for you to understand my question. I have asked you what that explosiveness looks like in real terms and you are, so far, not providing an adequate response.

You also choose an interesting selection of example training techniques and tools to associate with modern sports science. Plyometrics has been used in the West since the '70s.
Kettlebells date back to antiquity. What is "proper" lifting and why is this particular to the modern day?

In any event, show me the empirical evidence that demonstrates these so-called modern training techniques make a boxer more explosive than other training techniques and then perhaps we can discuss. References to "potential explosiveness" and stating "BJS holds it back" because it's risky, is beyond vague and quite laughable.

What is there to be learned from what you are writing - other than you like to punt the theory of sports evolution? You're not producing anything that hasn't been seen on this forum already.

If only the establishment of proof and facts were as simple as making a bunch of unfalsifiable statements.

I think @Xplosive was on the right lines. You seem familiar with the forum, clearly have an agenda and have created an alt through which to pursue it.

It's a shame you have little in the way of an original, evidence-based case. Your pseudo-scientific theories, a misunderstanding of the sport of boxing and a good deal of reliance on fallacy, to boot, is not cutting it, I'm afraid.

 

1983 world amateur boxing championships bronze medalist.

He beat Hearns twice using the slugger style because no one outboxed tommy.

Hell even master boxers like hagler and srl had to revert to a face first slugging style to get a peak Tommy out of there.

Barkley had fast hands,beautiful technique on his left hooks and could move and box well in the 1980"s....yes he looked like a skilless bum against Toney but thats cos Toney could do that to a man and its clear now Iran was a spent force after the gruelling 2nd hearns fight..one of the most gruelling fights ever seen in living memory...Tommy"s face looked like another person at the end.

Unfair critics use the Benn debacle to knock Barkley"s credentials... The facts are:

A) It was a premature stoppage on a technicality,despite being hit on the ground twice as well ....Barkley was nowhere near done...a great war was just starting...and Benn never wanted a rematch.

B) Foolish poor matchmaking from Iran"s perspective to match a rusty inactive barkley coming off detached retina surgery,his father dying the week before the fight...against a fast power punching dynamo like benn with no warm up fight to test the eye....Iran just got caught.

BJS doesnt have remotely that power or speed or variety of punches that Benn has. And lol if barkley could box masters like nunn,duran and kalambay to either close decisions or keep it respectable in kalambay"s case ...Saunders is just not even WBC top 20 in the 1988-1989 middleweight rankings...

This is the modern day boxing malady since 2012/13...and why the sport (excluding hw division) has gone down the toilet the last 7/8 years.... frauds like bjs cultivating an aura of "invincibility" or "relavence" in boxing......by not boxing !!!!....it"s like those old bullshido kung fu death touch masters....who never engage in combat but talk a good game..thats what saunders and his ilk are.....! At least the self proclaimed welsh Mayweather fought and got exposed when he did.

And now this is where its led...the 160 lbs wrecking ball Hearns who took on hagler,decimated duran,pistolwhipped a brutally strong light heavyweight champ dennis andries at 162lbs, and one punched shuler,beat a bull like roldan ,even on his off nights beat guys like doug dewitt and james kinchen who bjs has never beaten the calibre of......even that hearns is now apparently on forums getting beaten by bjs!!

In another ten years classic forums will be full of these pronouncements...and its not an age thing im 44...i rate GGG and canelo right up there i think both beat hearns...i rate a guy like shawn porter right up there.....or tyson fury atg hw...

 

Advancements in sports science doesn't automatically mean that the fighters are better.

There's some fighters from 50 years ago who were better than some of today's fighters.

I'm one of Billy's biggest fans, but he wasn't as good as Nunn.

Having access to digital content doesn't mean anything.

Nunn was taller, with a bigger reach.

He was faster and more athletic.

They both had different styles.

Nunn fought the wrong fight against Barkley though. It should have been easier for him.

Billy would also have had his hands full against Barkley. He would have been pressured hard against a guy who would have poured forward aggressively all throughout the fight. Barkley was very strong and powerful.

 

There hasn't been 30 years of evolution in the sport.

You can see that just going through the divisions.

Boxing just ebbs and flows and has done for many years.

Billy would have struggled to make the top 10 in the early 90's.

The sport is weaker if anything.

More belts, more politics, European level guys winning versions of titles etc.

 

You look at the top British Middleweights in early October 1989 ...Herol Graham,Nigel Benn,Michael Watson,Chris Eubanks,Steve Collins, Rod Douglas and Errol Christie.

Look at now..

 

Hmmm....a lot of Billy Joe hate going on here...and I don't think it's exactly fair tbh. For one thing, you guys are painfully overrating Barkley, and not considering that these hypothetical matches are predicated on the assumption that you have two men at their very best "competing" in them. Now, I've seen both men fight at their best, and Barkley looked just spectacular vs a scared to death Darrin Van Horn, and in coming from behind to ko a past-his-best, chinny Thomas Hearns (his chin being his Achilles Heel)...and that ko being somewhere in the "flukey" department, as he failed to replicate that said ko vs an older, by 4 years ,Hearns. It's already been pointed out that he really shouldn't have been decked by and defeated by Duran.
Sure Saunders has been less than inspired, side tracked and preoccupied in recent times, but...to be fair, I've seen him in action a few years ago, vs Andy Lee and David Lemieux, and I saw him cruise to the limit in defeating...outclassing them both. Great pair of legs Billy Joe has...and when he's in working order, he reminds me more of Willie Pastrano than Michael Nunn...yeah, Pastrano...a name you guys never bring up. If Saunders was in shape, stayed focused and.like Willie P, stuck to just boxing and moving...religiously avoiding any trading with Barkley, he could indeed have avoided Iran's worst and decisioned him....by a wide margin.

 

Red cobra thanks for telling us other forum members that all these years we had it wrong...we weren"t comparing fighters at their peak against each other...(puts on jimmy stewart voice) "Gee jolly...i better tell the fellas...joey...(shouts out) say Ed!!

Ps : A poor evaluation of a fighters merits does not constitute "hate".

All BJS fanboys come up with silly emotive arguments...such as stating he mastered all of michael Nunn"s moves just because he has a youtube library....BJS doesnt have a quarter of the natural hand and foot speed and natural athleticism of Nunn

 

Hehehe. I saw what you did there

 

You learned to recognise sarcasm mate

 

Willie Pastrano is a more accurate stylistic comparison to Saunders than Nunn.

 

Your whole premise here is based on overrating Iran Barkley...Saunders would be a more daunting challenge than Darrin Van Horn.