The overrated Roberto Duran

[TheGreatA]

I think Duran is overrated if he is ranked top 10, but i have him #21 on my P4P list. In my collection, i have around 60-65 of his fights and i do regard him as one of the greatest mainly due to his LW career. Duran's No Mas lost hurt his image but i felt his fights with Moore, Cuevas, Hagler, and Barkely showed he did have the heart and courage of a true champion. I like his fighting ability in the inside and how he got leverage on his punches and how he was able to slip punches on the inside. Just look at RD15 of his first fight with SRL; he made SRL missed three punches while he displayed cat like reflexes.

My biggest bone with some Duran fans is when they say he is the greatest latin fighter. I still think that belongs to Carlos Monzon. Monzon fought in a competitive division and when without losing over 80 of his last fights.

With all due respect to Carlos Monzon, I wouldn't rate his reign at 160 any higher than I do Duran's at 135 and we know that Duran went up to the welterweight and middleweight divisions also while Monzon never tried to test waters at light heavyweight or heavyweight even though there were possibilities.

Wins over Napoles and Griffith were great but both men were giving away a lot of age/height/reach to Monzon.

[Method Checker]

You could argue Leonard & Gans but no Ortiz in my opinion.

Ortiz beat better fighters than Duran did at lightweight.

Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.

Who said I didn't get Duran credit? He was able to beat Leonard in a brawl but not in a game of pure boxing.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.

I learned a while ago that you shouldn't let the judges determine your scoring. I had Leonard winning every round except for maybe one.

By negatively, you mean you didn't like it. That's too bad, but he still out-boxed him in embarrassing fashion.

Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.

While the latter part may be true, it showed that he did have flaws and that he was able to be out-boxed.

And if you claim that this was such an amateur version of Duran, how can you even say that Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight? You can't have it both ways.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.

Here we go with a personal attack. Showing your immaturity.

Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.

What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather.

Can you point out where in the fight Duran rubbed laces in Moore's eyes? Is this not an excuse?

All you have to do is watch the fight closely. Watch the fight. Something you claim me of not doing.

Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

It's fine if you deny him to be the best welterweight of the past decade, even though most don't. Let's go with the runner-up in Mosley. Mosley would give Duran a very competitive fight. Although he wasn't as defensively minded as Duran was at welterweight, he was faster and arguably had more power.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

I never said that. I was making a comparison between Duran and Pacquiao. Duran won titles at less weight classes than Pacquiao. He also lost to the best fighter of the decade, at the highest weight he won a title, while Pacquiao didn't.

Smith and Weaver were also 40+ year old men almost as old as Holmes himself and it's rather debatable whether they were better than Castro.

It's your opinion. Nothing against that. Even though I think you're wrong.

So bring up all these examples then. Bernard Hopkins? Archie Moore? Any more?

Why would I waste my time just to show you something that you already know. You're buying time and it's quite obvious. If you just admit that you're wrong, you'll be a better man.

[TheGreatA]

Ortiz beat better fighters than Duran did at lightweight.

I wouldn't call an old Joe Brown and Ismael Laguna necessarily better fighters than the ones Duran faced. Elorde and Ramos were good but they were coming up in weight. Ramos also nearly KO'd Ortiz in their first bout despite being a former featherweight. I believe prime for prime Ortiz vs Buchanan would be near 50-50 match-up.

Who said I didn't get Duran credit? He was able to beat Leonard in a brawl but not in a game of pure boxing.

The usual excuse is that Leonard "wanted" to brawl with Duran. As if he lost that fight on purpose. No, Duran forced Leonard to brawl and won the fight fair and square. It was an all-time great performance against an all-time great fighter.

I learned a while ago that you shouldn't let the judges determine your scoring. I had Leonard winning every round except for maybe one.

Sometimes you also have to take others' opinions into account.

By negatively, you mean you didn't like it. That's too bad, but he still out-boxed him in embarrassing fashion.

Being negative means you're trying your best to avoid any action. The fact is that had both fighters fought like Leonard did, there would have been no fight. Yes, Leonard was able to use his advantages in height, reach, speed and youth to beat Duran in the rematch but this doesn't automatically erase Duran's win in the first fight.

While the latter part may be true, it showed that he did have flaws and that he was able to be out-boxed.

And if you claim that this was such an amateur version of Duran, how can you even say that Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight? You can't have it both ways.

I never said he was an amateur nor did I make any excuses about the first loss. Duran lost the first fight but he clearly adapted and became a better boxer from that point onwards. The Duran who fought DeJesus the first time was still a beast, one who could beat many of the lightweight greats, but he was also one-dimensional. This approach was ideal to beat Buchanan but it was the wrong style against DeJesus.

Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight for cleaning out the division of the late 1960's and early 1970's and for beating Ismael Laguna. On film it's clear that he was a great boxer but his style was well-suited for a young, relentless Duran.

Here we go with a personal attack. Showing your immaturity.

A personal attack? I'm simply questioning how much you truly know about DeJesus and Buchanan.

What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather.

Did Mayweather suddenly become a lesser boxer just a couple of years after beating Corrales? Or is it because his style was more suited to beating Corrales than Castillo?

I could say that the Duran of the Palomino fight would have beaten every welterweight who ever lived but the truth is that he fought against an opponent whose style was ideal for Duran to fight against.

All you have to do is watch the fight closely. Watch the fight. Something you claim me of not doing.

I didn't say you haven't watched it.



Where is Duran lacing Davey Moore?

It's fine if you deny him to be the best welterweight of the past decade, even though most don't. Let's go with the runner-up in Mosley. Mosley would give Duran a very competitive fight. Although he wasn't as defensively minded as Duran was at welterweight, he was faster and arguably had more power.

Make a poll and let's see if people consider Cotto the best welterweight of this decade. I doubt they will. Cotto has always come second best in his big fights outside of the Mosley win, and Mosley wasn't exactly in his prime.

Mosley is getting old. He was at his peak in the very early 2000's when fighting De La Hoya.

I never said that. I was making a comparison between Duran and Pacquiao. Duran won titles at less weight classes than Pacquiao. He also lost to the best fighter of the decade, at the highest weight he won a title, while Pacquiao didn't.

Cotto is not the best fighter of the decade and it's a stretch to compare him to a prime Marvin Hagler.

It's your opinion. Nothing against that. Even though I think you're wrong.

It's not my opinion that they were 40 years of age and neither of them were exactly great fighters anyway. This is James "Bonecrusher" Smith we're talking about, Bonecrusher Smith... The guy Marvis Frazier beat.

Why would I waste my time just to show you something that you already know. You're buying time and it's quite obvious. If you just admit that you're wrong, you'll be a better man.

Again you haven't given any actual examples of 47 year olds beating "paper" champions, outside of Holmes running the geezer circuit against Smith and Weaver. Hardly comparable to Duran beating 29 year old Jorge Castro.

[The Noose]

What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

U think he could be in the top 3 lightweights ever, but its beyond u he is considered so great?

To me top 3 lightweights ever is already an ATG, and therefore there can be arguments made for him being one of the p4p ATG's.

The arguments are never black and white.

[Method Checker]

I wouldn't call an old Joe Brown and Ismael Laguna necessarily better fighters than the ones Duran faced. Elorde and Ramos were good but they were coming up in weight. Ramos also nearly KO'd Ortiz in their first bout despite being a former featherweight. I believe prime for prime Ortiz vs Buchanan would be near 50-50 match-up.

Like I said, it's your opinion. If you wanna be biased, go ahead.

The usual excuse is that Leonard "wanted" to brawl with Duran. As if he lost that fight on purpose. No, Duran forced Leonard to brawl and won the fight fair and square. It was an all-time great performance against an all-time great fighter.

I already responded to this.

Sometimes you also have to take others' opinions into account.

Sometimes. That time, they were wrong.

Being negative means you're trying your best to avoid any action. The fact is that had both fighters fought like Leonard did, there would have been no fight. Yes, Leonard was able to use his advantages in height, reach, speed and youth to beat Duran in the rematch but this doesn't automatically erase Duran's win in the first fight.

I never said it erased anything. It just showed how unable Duran was to out-box someone with speed and quickness. It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment.

I never said he was an amateur nor did I make any excuses about the first loss. Duran lost the first fight but he clearly adapted and became a better boxer from that point onwards. The Duran who fought DeJesus the first time was still a beast, one who could beat many of the lightweight greats, but he was also one-dimensional. This approach was ideal to beat Buchanan but it was the wrong style against DeJesus.

You just can't stop making biased excuses.

A personal attack? I'm simply questioning how much you truly know about DeJesus and Buchanan.

I don't have to watch the career set of every single fighter to know how they fought.

Did Mayweather suddenly become a lesser boxer just a couple of years after beating Corrales? Or is it because his style was more suited to beating Corrales than Castillo?

We're not talking about who Mayweather was better against. You're going off topic and I don't intend on going down that same route.

I could say that the Duran of the Palomino fight would have beaten every welterweight who ever lived but the truth is that he fought against an opponent whose style was ideal for Duran to fight against.

You and I both know that Whitaker and Mayweather would've given Duran a beating. Too slick, too fast, too defensive and too much of a good pure boxer for Duran to handle.

I didn't say you haven't watched it.



Where is Duran lacing Davey Moore?

Why would I watch the whole fight again just to prove something that's already been known for a while?

Make a poll and let's see if people consider Cotto the best welterweight of this decade. I doubt they will. Cotto has always come second best in his big fights outside of the Mosley win, and Mosley wasn't exactly in his prime.

Mosley is getting old. He was at his peak in the very early 2000's when fighting De La Hoya.

There was already a poll in NSB and Cotto took it by a landslide. Go ahead and make another if you feel you need to be proven wrong. And don't make it in the history section where you have your friends to back you up for the fun it.

Cotto is not the best fighter of the decade and it's an insult to compare him to a prime Marvin Hagler.

I never said he was the best fighter of the decade. I said he was the best fighter in his weight class of the decade. Much like Hagler was.

It's not my opinion that they were 40 years of age and neither of them were exactly great fighters anyway. This is James "Bonecrusher" Smith we're talking about, Bonecrusher Smith...

I meant based on their overall careers.

Again you haven't given any actual examples of 47 year olds beating paper champions, outside of Holmes running the geezer circuit against Smith and Weaver. Hardly comparable to Duran beating 29 year old Jorge Castro.

I already responded to this.

You act as if beating Castro was an accomplishment. This just shows that you'll do anything to make sure that your favorite fighters don't get commented on in a negative way. There's two sides to the story. You have one. I have the other.

[Method Checker]

U think he could be in the top 3 lightweights ever, but its beyond u he is considered so great?

To me top 3 lightweights ever is already an ATG, and therefore there can be arguments made for him being one of the p4p ATG's.

The arguments are never black and white.

I have him rated no higher than as the third best lightweight of all-time. Gans is second and Leonard is first. I only have Leonard in my top 10 all-time P4P list.

[TheGreatA]

Like I said, it's your opinion. If you wanna be biased, go ahead.

Isn't it all an opinion? Aren't we supposed to discuss boxing here and not just state that "it's your opinion" and leave it that? That's very easy to do.

You could, for example, point out how Ortiz's opposition is so much better than Duran's and compare their dominance, head-to-head abilities, longevity and so on. For me, Duran was better.

I already responded to this.

You haven't responded to it. From the very beginning you attempted to diminish Duran's victory over Leonard by saying that Leonard simply chose to brawl with him. As if Duran had nothing to do with that.

Sometimes. That time, they were wrong.

In your opinion.

I never said it erased anything. It just showed how unable Duran was to out-box someone with speed and quickness. It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment.

It showed how Duran was unable to outbox someone with speed, quickness as well as advantages in size, height, reach and youth. Duran had no trouble outboxing fast boxers at lightweight, such as Esteban DeJesus, Edwin Viruet, Ken Buchanan.

Duran was hardly a bully. He quit against Leonard but shall we take away Willie Pep's achievements for quitting against Sandy Saddler? Sam Langford's achievements for quitting against Joe Jeannette? JC Chavez for quitting against De La Hoya? Joe Gans quit too and took a dive. Duran had a 120 fight career and quit in one, should this define his whole career? Especially when he went onto show heart against the likes of Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Marvin Hagler, much bigger men than himself. One fight doesn't define a whole career.

You just can't stop making biased excuses.

You don't respond to my points. Duran eventually proved he was better than DeJesus yet I'm somehow making excuses? By pointing out that DeJesus and Buchanan fought entirely differently? I never claimed that Duran was an amateur or a novice when he fought Buchanan & DeJesus but he was one-dimensional, a dimension that worked well against Buchanan but not so well against DeJesus. Duran was forced to adapt and become a better boxer in order to overcome DeJesus. This is rather obvious watching their trilogy.

I don't have to watch the career set of every single fighter to know how they fought.

But you do have to watch them in action. So far you have failed to actually discuss the finer points in the styles of Roberto Duran, Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus and have only come up with the kind of information one could easily seek by visiting BoxRec.com.

We're not talking about who Mayweather was better against. You're going off topic and I don't intend on going down that same route.

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him."

Actually you said that Mayweather was better against Corrales. I pointed out that Corrales's style suited Mayweather's, and that stylistically Castillo resembles Duran much more than Corrales.

You and I both know that Whitaker and Mayweather would've given Duran a beating. Too slick, too fast, too defensive and too much of a good pure boxer for Duran to handle.

I don't know it. Whitaker vs Duran for me is a 50-50 fight while I'd give Duran the edge against Mayweather. It's not as if Duran didn't fight slicksters. I'd say that Marcel resembles Mayweather quite a bit with his beautiful right hand lead and slick movement which he beat Alexis Arguello with. Duran however brought intelligent pressure, had better footwork at 135 than he did at higher weights, great at slipping punches and getting into his ideal range. Pernell and Floyd neither have the firepower of DeJesus or Leonard so I don't see them as similar match-ups.

Escaping a prime Duran would be far more troubling for Whitaker and Mayweather than it was for Leonard who was bigger and stronger than either of them. Not to mention that Duran did beat Leonard in the first fight by forcing him to fight his fight. Whitaker is 5'6 while Mayweather is 5'7-5'8.

Why would I watch the whole fight again just to prove something that's already been known for a while?

To prove what you're saying? Sure, the recent excuse about this fight has been that Davey Moore was thumbed but I've never heard anything about lacing before. In the video I posted, there's no lacing whatsoever. Duran was simply beating Moore up.

There was already a poll in NSB and Cotto took it by a landslide. Go ahead and make another if you feel you need to be proven wrong. And don't make it in the history section where you have your friends to back you up for the fun it.

With a close decision win over a 37 year old Shane Mosley, a controversial split decision win over Clottey and wins over Judah & Quintana, such awards are given out rather easily these days. Compare Hagler's legacy to Cotto's and you'll see the difference.

I never said he was the best fighter of the decade. I said he was the best fighter in his weight class of the decade. Much like Hagler was.

You could argue that Hagler was the best fighter of the decade while Cotto was far from it. The point is that Cotto is not comparable to a prime Marvin Hagler.

I meant based on their overall careers.

Neither were exactly in the prime of their life, were they? I don't see how wins over out of shape 40 year olds compare to Duran beating a much younger Castro.

I already responded to this.

You act as if beating Castro was an accomplishment. This just shows that you'll do anything to make sure that your favorite fighters don't get commented on in a negative way. There's two sides to the story. You have one. I have the other.

Of course it's an accomplishment. To pretend that it's not is just ridiculous. You better believe that if Roy Jones managed to beat the worst of all title holders at 47 years of age, you'd hear about it. Castro was a crude but strong fighter, and it was figured that he'd kill old Duran, yet Duran more than held his own with him.

There's nothing that compares to Duran beating Jorge Castro. I'm not saying it's a career-defining win but it's a notable one, because no other 47 year old former lightweight has beaten a 29 year old former middleweight title holder.

[StarshipTrooper]

The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.

This is why I point out that as recently as the 1980s Mayweather's pot-shot and run like **** tactics wouldn't have played well in the eyes of the judges (ie. the people who determine who wins the decision) and would have cost him fights.

Poet

[Method Checker]

Isn't it all an opinion? Aren't we supposed to discuss boxing here and not just state that "it's your opinion" and leave it that? That's very easy to do.

You could, for example, point out how Ortiz's opposition is so much better than Duran's and compare their dominance, head-to-head abilities, longevity and so on. For me, Duran was better.

Ortiz beat four lineal champions at lightweight, while Duran beat two. Ortiz also beat four HOFers, while Duran only beat one.

The level of fighters that Ortiz beat were simply much better Duran's.

You haven't responded to it. From the very beginning you attempted to diminish Duran's victory over Leonard by saying that Leonard simply chose to brawl with him. As if Duran had nothing to do with that.

He did brawl with him. Obviously he had an option of whether he wanted to go toe to toe or not. The one quote you gave from his trainer doesn't mean anything. Leonard did what he wanted in the second fight and look what happened. He made a complete mockery of Duran.

It showed how Duran was unable to outbox someone with speed, quickness as well as advantages in size, height, reach and youth. Duran had no trouble outboxing fast boxers at lightweight, such as Esteban DeJesus, Edwin Viruet, Ken Buchanan.

You think the boxers you named are as fast as Leonard? Wow.

Duran was hardly a bully. He quit against Leonard but shall we take away Willie Pep's achievements for quitting against Sandy Saddler? Sam Langford's achievements for quitting against Joe Jeannette? JC Chavez for quitting against De La Hoya? Joe Gans quit too and took a dive. Duran had a 120 fight career and quit in one, should this define his whole career? Especially when he went onto show heart against the likes of Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Marvin Hagler, much bigger men than himself. One fight doesn't define a whole career.

Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

You bring up Pep? Haha. He had an injury, unlike Duran who chose to make up multiple excuses. Duran was out-boxed to the point of embarrassment and that's that.

You don't respond to my points. Duran eventually proved he was better than DeJesus yet I'm somehow making excuses? By pointing out that DeJesus and Buchanan fought entirely differently? I never claimed that Duran was an amateur or a novice when he fought Buchanan & DeJesus but he was one-dimensional, a dimension that worked well against Buchanan but not so well against DeJesus. Duran was forced to adapt and become a better boxer in order to overcome DeJesus. This is rather obvious watching their trilogy.

You said Duran was young and didn't have enough experience, yet he beat Buchanan. Then when he loses, you said that's because he didn't have the right style. It's clear you're making excuses and it's quite sad.

But you do have to watch them in action. So far you have failed to actually discuss the finer points in the styles of Roberto Duran, Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus and have only come up with the kind of information one could easily seek by visiting BoxRec.com.

There we go with the personal attacks, again.

Just because my opinions are different from yours and I'm getting the better of you in this debate, you claim that I haven't watched any fights. You just use that as another excuse to cover up everything I've proven wrong about your little theories. You're clearly biased.

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him."

Actually you said that Mayweather was better against Corrales. I pointed out that Corrales's style suited Mayweather's, and that stylistically Castillo resembles Duran much more than Corrales.

Duran isn't Corrales. He also isn't Castillo. To use Castillo as an example of why Duran would be able to beat Mayweather is stupid.

Nice job, there.. NOT.

I don't know it. Whitaker vs Duran for me is a 50-50 fight while I'd give Duran the edge against Mayweather. It's not as if Duran didn't fight slicksters. I'd say that Marcel resembles Mayweather quite a bit with his beautiful right hand lead and slick movement which he beat Alexis Arguello with. Duran however brought intelligent pressure, had better footwork at 135 than he did at higher weights, great at slipping punches and getting into his ideal range. Pernell and Floyd neither have the firepower of DeJesus or Leonard so I don't see them as similar match-ups.

That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

Escaping a prime Duran would be far more troubling for Whitaker and Mayweather than it was for Leonard who was bigger and stronger than either of them. Not to mention that Duran did beat Leonard in the first fight by forcing him to fight his fight. Whitaker is 5'6 while Mayweather is 5'7-5'8.

You can't compare Whitaker and Mayweather to Leonard because they're nothing alike. Whitaker and Mayweather were much better defensively than Leonard. Do you honestly think Whitaker and Mayweather would stand there and exchange punches with Duran. No. It would be similar to Leonard vs Duran II. They would out-box him by counter-punching (which they were amazing at) and constantly moving. They're defense would've been too much.

To prove what you're saying? Sure, the recent excuse about this fight has been that Davey Moore was thumbed but I've never heard anything about lacing before. In the video I posted, there's no lacing whatsoever. Duran was simply beating Moore up.

Believe what you want but it doesn't matter.

I do remember that it was towards the end of one of the rounds, though.

With a close decision win over a 37 year old Shane Mosley, a controversial split decision win over Clottey and wins over Judah & Quintana, such awards are given out rather easily these days. Compare Hagler's legacy to Cotto's and you'll see the difference.

You could argue that Hagler was the best fighter of the decade while Cotto was far from it. The point is that Cotto is not comparable to a prime Marvin Hagler.

Why do you constantly try to bring up separate debates? I'm not comparing the accomplishments of Hagler and Cotto.

I'm comparing the fact that Duran lost to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division where he won a title at.

Pacquiao, however, didn't lose to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division he won a title at.

Neither were exactly in the prime of their life, were they? I don't see how wins over out of shape 40 year olds compare to Duran beating a much younger Castro.

The overrated Castro was a lucky, overweight paper champion. Castro also beat Duran in their first fight, only to lose the second fight by a close decision. Did Holmes ever lose to either Smith or Weaver? Didn't think so.

Of course it's an accomplishment. To pretend that it's not is just ridiculous. You better believe that if Roy Jones managed to beat the worst of all title holders at 47 years of age, you'd hear about it. Castro was a crude but strong fighter, and it was figured that he'd kill old Duran, yet Duran more than held his own with him.

There's nothing that compares to Duran beating Jorge Castro. I'm not saying it's a career-defining win but it's a notable one, because no other 47 year old former lightweight has beaten a 29 year old former middleweight title holder.

Castro was hardly a good fighter. Have you actually seen him fight? He's below average of any kind of championship material.

[steeluv]

I think you are forgetting the the way he stepped up through the weight divisions, u can talk about lightweights all day but how many ppl did wht he did and beat some one like SRL, an all time great and was competitative against the likes of Hagler, a much bigger guy who deserves his place in hall of fame, and He beat Iran Barkley in RING MAGAZINES FIGHT OF THE YEAR at AGE 38, Barkley was 29.

He won titles (WBC) in 3 of the Original Weight Classes? When winning Titles meant something and competition was stronger. Even what Pacquaio has done now I wouldn't consider to be as good as this because of the amount of ****ty belts and low class opponents. Lets see how many of your ****ty list have achieved such