Iran Barkley vs. Glen Johnson at MW, SMW, and LHW

Johnson has had trouble with fighters who took it to him and backed him up, ie: Merqui Sosa and Omar Sheika. I'd say Barkley's strength and power carries him to a competitive but fair decision win.

 

Rarely did a fighter outpunch Iran.. They did outspeed him. The similar thing about Barkley and Johnson is that both stopped legends Hearns and Jones. I pick Barkley if he fought Johnson by mid round knockout.

 

Yep, Barkley. Johnson was a fringe contender for most of his career but was lucky to go against older fighters late in his career when he had still much left.

 

Glen Johnson would be totally irrelevant in the world of boxing if RJ wasnt shot to **** when he faced Glen.

The Blade owns him.

 

I don't think that's particularly fair. He was already IBF champ when he fought Jones. Had already beaten Woods, would go on to beat Tarver and Griffin, and now he's 41 and has earned another title shot. I had him winning the first Dawson fight by a poon hair, by the way. That doesn't exactly seem like the stuff of which irrelevance is made to me.

 

I doubt Barkley stops Johnson, it took a prime Hopkins (the best he ever looked IMO) to stop a GREEN Johnson and it was on his feet. He can take a punch, and Barkley would be moving up in weight against a physically strong volume puncher who has one of the best inside games in the sport. This fight is interesting.

And for the people who says Johnson is overrated, you should take a look at the first Dawson fight and the fight against Yusaf Mack. Both of these fights happened when Johnson was slightly past it.

 

Don't think he beat Tarver or Dawson, but Johnson has gone to an opponents back yard and been robbed countless times.

 

Like I said he profitted from his good longevity. Prime for prime he would lose to all of them.

 

Well, he certainly beat Tarver officially, and I didn't say he beat Dawson, I say I scored it slightly for Glen myself. I don't think many would've argued had that fight gone to either man or a draw. That was an extremely competitive fight. I didn't have a problem with the outcome either.

Well, my comment was to Xplosive and the argument was against saying he would be completely irrelevant without Jones, now, seeing as how he was relevant before Jones and has been relevant since Jones...You can see perhaps why I find that disagreeable...on account of it being false, that is.

And prime for prime that he loses to Jones is a given. But, the others? Why? He wasn't in his own prime when he fought the others and it so happens that Jones, Tarver and Johnson are all 41, Griffin and Woods younger. I'm not sure at all that in his prime he loses to them all. And having nearly dethroned Dawson at 39/40ish does not make me think a win over the likes of Tarver, Griffin and Woods prime for prime is an obvious impossibility.