We all know what happened to Hearns vs Barkley, but what if they had fought in 84, at Super Welter, when Hearns was at his best They sere both about the same height but Barkley had the thicker frame, so he would probably lose some muscle to make weight Any thoughts on the hypothetical outcome?
Wow! No doubt? I'm not so sure. I think Hearns had declined somewhat when he fought Barkley. It seems to me that a prime Hearns would have given a better account if himself.
Barkley made superwelter for his middleweight title fight with Kalambay. On the television coverage they mentioned that the WBA or the Italian boxing commission or somebody made him gain weight until he was over the superwelter limit, which Ray Mancini thought was absurd. Either way, Barkley wasn't much of a fighter yet in '84, and he never fought at superwelter. Matching him up with Hearns in those circumstances seems pointless, unless you're trying to guarantee the Hitman his elusive win.
Yeah, big boned, broad shouldered, thick jointed dude bounced down (according Italianate weights) to 154 and was dried to the root to underperform is not the best example to provide.
Barkley did weight 154lbs against Kalambay. I believe Hearns stops him here, and I believe Hearns actually beats Barkley on most occasions in general. First fight Hearns was unlucky, an incredibly well timed fight was what finished Hearns, which I don’t believe would have happened on most occasions, and in the second fight, Hearns’ legs weren’t the same, which allowed Barkley to close the distance easier, so context does matter in those fights and as to why Hearns lost both of them, which seems like Barkley ‘always had his number’ on paper.
