BoxRec

How does this unfold?

Tough call. I'd probably take Froch. At super middle, Barkley blew out Van Horn and then got beaten up by Toney, so not a large sample size to go on. He was a bit past his best at that weight, though, and I'll take the ferocious Froch.

I'd confidently take Froch by decision.

I'll be the odd man out on this one. I think the Blade takes him to tough guy school.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'll be the odd man out on this one. I think the Blade takes him to tough guy school.

I don't think your pick is odd. I'm not as confident as gil is. Barkley was very tough.

What about Froch vs Hearns?

That's a good one too. Hearns obviously wasn't at his best at that weight, but he still had a few noteworthy performances left the question is do you think he could've been good enough to outbox Froch at 168? Or would he get stopped?

Is it likely that either would budge? Would boil down to who was tougher wouldn't it?

Roco wrote:Is it likely that either would budge? Would boil down to who was tougher wouldn't it?

Probably, though both have been dropped (more so Barkley).

If Froch boxes like he did against Abraham, he wins. If he lets it be a good old streetfight, Barkley wins.

SamWise72 wrote:If Froch boxes like he did against Abraham, he wins. If he lets it be a good old streetfight, Barkley wins.

Not sure Froch loses a street fight. Also, Barkley had more tools than Abraham so outboxing him wouldn't be quite as easy.

gilgamesh wrote:What about Froch vs Hearns?

That's a good one too. Hearns obviously wasn't at his best at that weight, but he still had a few noteworthy performances left the question is do you think he could've been good enough to outbox Froch at 168? Or would he get stopped?

Tough one. Look what Kinchen almost did; ahd that been Froch in there...
On the other hand, Hearns was the superior boxer.

Rover wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:If Froch boxes like he did against Abraham, he wins. If he lets it be a good old streetfight, Barkley wins.

Not sure Froch loses a street fight. Also, Barkley had more tools than Abraham so outboxing him wouldn't be quite as easy.

I'd love to see it, however it went.

SamWise72 wrote:

Rover wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:If Froch boxes like he did against Abraham, he wins. If he lets it be a good old streetfight, Barkley wins.

Not sure Froch loses a street fight. Also, Barkley had more tools than Abraham so outboxing him wouldn't be quite as easy.

I'd love to see it, however it went.

x2

BoxBuzz wrote:I'll be the odd man out on this one. I think the Blade takes him to tough guy school.

Agree with this, Buzz, prime for prime I believe The Blade has this easily. I am friends with a former Frch opponent, when Froch was high on the rise, and also now a former Barkley opponent (and victor) from one Barkley's last fights. When Barkley came here to fight Tosca he was old and nearly blind. A heavy weight friend who was to be his main sparring partner only spared him once, that was enough he said, he recons he's never had it so hard in sparring and never been hit so hard. Tosca, normally an aggressive fighter with little reguard for defense fought the whole Barkley fight defensively, with a tight guard and boxed to a points win. This was against a battle weary, worn out and nearly blind Barkley at LHW.

Realistically Barkley was no better and no more hard hitting than the version of Glen Johnson, Froch beat on an off-night. Tight carves apparently.

I don't know about that, not taking anything away from Glen Johnson, and I'm a huge fan of the Road Warrior's. Barkley, in his prime, was a good, hard hitting middle during a very strong era of middle weights. He beat Hearns twice, both ways! lost very close decisions to Roberto Duran and Micheal Nunn as well his epic one sided demolition of Van Horn. I think his better days were behind him when he fought James Toney and I believe his eyesight was failing. Actually, you may be right about him and Glen Johnson being on par. Do you think Glann Johnson of 04-07, his prime, gets beaten by Froch? Glenn vs Iran would have been an epic fight.

polecateddy wrote:Realistically Barkley was no better and no more hard hitting than the version of Glen Johnson, Froch beat on an off-night. Tight carves apparently.

I view Barkley as better than Johnson.

I don't see why?! Of anything they were very similar in their primes. Glen had the better discipline obviously. A little more toughness, a touch less punch power. But similar fighters.

A 43 year old Glen Johnson as good and hard punching as Iran Barkley?

Honestly, I think polecat has some sort of mental health question. His view of everything boxing related is utterly insane. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

loaded_gloves wrote:A 43 year old Glen Johnson as good and hard punching as Iran Barkley?

Honestly, I think polecat has some sort of mental health question. His view of everything boxing related is utterly insane. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

I was really referring to Glen is his prime, compared to Barkley in his. Although one was a light heavy and the other a middle. I don't see this comparison as 'utterly insane.' Dingbat!

No, I agree, prime for prime it's a good comparison. I have Barkley a little ahead, but it's not chalk and cheese.

I don't think Johnson's three month run (Jones and Tarver) matches what Barkley did.

Clinton Woods is a respectable win, too.

SamWise72 wrote:Clinton Woods is a respectable win, too.

It is but Johnson's mainly known for Jones and Tarver and he has one win against Woods in 3 fights.

Rover wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:Clinton Woods is a respectable win, too.

It is but Johnson's mainly known for Jones and Tarver and he has one win against Woods in 3 fights.

You're just going off his boxrec record obviously. Most of his loses were disputed and unfair. He should have won 2 of 3 against Woods for example.