Most impressive performance - Hearns win over Hill or Duran over Barkley?

Virgil Hill was undefeated and a 10 title defenses. I think the Hearns fight was much more impressive. Barkley's claim to fame was Hearns and that punch in 1988, but other than that he was not a great fighter. he had the right style for Hearns. But Hill was a legit champion who had 3 titles reigns if I remember correctly with something like 24 title defenses. So Hearns win was a great win. He didn't get the credit he should have for the win.

 

Agreed. I'm a Barkley fan his two wins over Hearns, as deserved as they are, do not fully represent him as a fighter. I also agree with the Hill win being underated. I recently created a thread based around the Four King's resumes, not including each other. I think Hill would be firmly up there in that list.

 

I think it would have to.. I think Hill would have beaten at that point all the other fab 4 guys. Hearns handled an undefeated guy with 10 title defenses rather easily.. I was amazing at that time. Hearns later commented that Virgil made a mistake fighting him since all he really needed was the jab... He said Hill should have tried a few more things, but tried to outjab him and Hearns said his jab was better. With Barkley? It is a good win for Duran, but at that point other than Hearns, Barkley was a mediocre guy who was knocked down by Olajide, and the year after Hearns and Duran, lost to Nunn, Benn and a year before Hearns and Duran lost to Kalambay. he was not a great fighter really, but he had a great heart and a lot of desire.

 

If you looked at both without knowing the story I'd say hearns but knowing that Duran had been getting beat by people he shouldn't and was so out of his real weight against a massive middleweight and Barkley was brilliant that night I personally would go with durans

 

Duran for me. So small and old he fought a giant in shape motivated Barkley who fought the fight of his life that night. Durans performance that night at age 37 and fighting at that weight is one for the ages while Hearns fought a great fight himself Hill basically had no advantages over Hearns except age and actually seemed intimidated that night.
Clearly Duran for me

 

Hearns. Both were two traditional weight classes above their best. Both were past prime, Duran probably moreso. But Hearns beat a better fighter and convincingly.

 

age is an advantage, the fact he asked for Hearns and got him. He had a great jab and thought he would outjab him. He had advantages or so he thought, but Hearns jab was better. I cannot see how because Duran was being beaten up in otherfights, that means his accomplishment is more. Virgil is a much better fighter than Barkley,which is ironic because Barkley's claim to fame is Hearns.

 

Well considering Barkley beat Tommy twice, and Tommy obliterated Roberto, I believe this one is a given.

 

Just for the record, I believe Virgil Hill fought in a weak era, and is somewhat overrated and would have been an afterthought in the Saad, Braxton, Spinks etc era.

 

I'm biased towards Duran so I probably shouldn't have a say here ...

 

I dont think your getting my point. As stated the only advantage Hill had was age. I never for a minute thought Hill had a better Jab than Hearns or anything else for that matter.
Barkley had age height reach strength and weight on Duran and fought the fight of his life ans lost to a 37 yr old natural lightweight. Barkley was easily 180 rock hard conditioned. So I think Duran had many more obsticles to overcome and won an inredibly action packed fight.
Without question Durans win was more impressive

 

This.

Duran had to overcome a significant size advantage in beating Barkley. Iran may not have been a great fighter but neither was Virgil Hill. He was one of those belt holders who fought out of his hometown and when it was time to step up he froze up to a certain extent against Hearns. Barkley didn't freeze up against Hearns nor against Duran. He fought a great battle in defeat.