BoxRec

Potential superstar........
He hasn't fought since August..... current Commonwealth Champ, seems like he has bundles of talent......... What next?
Wayne Elcock?
Sylverster?
Duddy?
Your views.........

DuranTheGreat wrote:Potential superstar........

No. Top domestic operator and possibly European champion, yes. World champion in the making, I don't see it.

ArtOfWar wrote:

DuranTheGreat wrote:Potential superstar........

No. Top domestic operator and possibly European champion, yes. World champion in the making, I don't see it.

We'll have to see........ I personally think he has the capability to beat anyone in his weight if he makes some small adjustments to his game over the next year or two......

everybody is raving about Barker he hasn't fought anybody yet..... I will hold my reservations untill he gets in the ring with a real contender, i know he beat Bendall who beat Smith but i believe Smith will overturn that result easily, then i would like to watch Barker v Smith what do you reckon ???

Barker would school Smith. IMO. Smith makes too many mistakes.

ArtOfWar wrote:

DuranTheGreat wrote:Potential superstar........

No. Top domestic operator and possibly European champion, yes. World champion in the making, I don't see it.

neither do i.

good solid fighter.

probably european level.

perhaps bottom half of the world top 10.

but not best of the best. :(

Counter-puncher wrote:Barker would school Smith. IMO. Smith makes too many mistakes.

Barker certainly would not school Smith thats a ridiculous comment !

Lost all interest in him when he wouldn't fight Jantuah.

Wake me up when he wants to do something in this sport.

mark thompson wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Barker would school Smith. IMO. Smith makes too many mistakes.

Barker certainly would not school Smith thats a ridiculous comment !

really? I await your logic, here's mine

Barker handled bendall easily

whereas Smith lost (albeit by disputed decision, but lets face it Smith hardly looked that good vs the slightly past-it and slightly never-was-been Bendall) to him

i accept sometimes that kind of 'triangular logic' doesn't work in boxing but its a fact barker handled bendall- honest pro decent midland/english fighter- way easier than smith did. (or actually DIDN'T). if you want you could say that bendall spoiled their fight and turned it into a wrestle-fest, I would counter that both Barker and Elcock didn't let bendall do that and made sure they imposed their own gameplan on bendall which smith wasn't smart or good enough to do. Smith got imbroiled in what was maybe the wrong kind of fight for him. again, you might say.

bendall also got totally starched by elcock which i also saw. so bendall is low enough level for an only okay british champion to batter senseless- but too good for Smith to beat apparently. i wonder what people see in smith maybe you could enlighten me.

I think Barker is much too polished for Smith, who loses concentration in fights, who fights like he is a one-punch knockout artist when he doesn't hit THAT hard, who fights with his face at times, is way too open, drops his hands and gets drawn into brawls he doesn't need, smith has been up and down as a pro sometimes promising and sometimes looking poor whereas Barker's progression has been upwards all the way

so to sum up barker has better skill, boxing brain, consistency and record against a comparable opponent

a lot of people seem to rate smith i don't quite know why like i say maybe you could enlighten me and also as to why smith could beat barker.

Counter-puncher wrote:

mark thompson wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Barker would school Smith. IMO. Smith makes too many mistakes.

Barker certainly would not school Smith thats a ridiculous comment !

really? I await your logic, here's mine

Barker handled bendall easily

whereas Smith lost (albeit by disputed decision, but lets face it Smith hardly looked that good vs the slightly past-it and slightly never-was-been Bendall) to him

i accept sometimes that kind of 'triangular logic' doesn't work in boxing but its a fact barker handled bendall- honest pro decent midland/english fighter- way easier than smith did. (or actually DIDN'T). if you want you could say that bendall spoiled their fight and turned it into a wrestle-fest, I would counter that both Barker and Elcock didn't let bendall do that and made sure they imposed their own gameplan on bendall which smith wasn't smart or good enough to do. Smith got imbroiled in what was maybe the wrong kind of fight for him. again, you might say.

bendall also got totally starched by elcock which i also saw. so bendall is low enough level for an only okay british champion to batter senseless- but too good for Smith to beat apparently. i wonder what people see in smith maybe you could enlighten me.

I think Barker is much too polished for Smith, who loses concentration in fights, who fights like he is a one-punch knockout artist when he doesn't hit THAT hard, who fights with his face at times, is way too open, drops his hands and gets drawn into brawls he doesn't need, smith has been up and down as a pro sometimes promising and sometimes looking poor whereas Barker's progression has been upwards all the way

so to sum up barker has better skill, boxing brain, consistency and record against a comparable opponent

a lot of people seem to rate smith i don't quite know why like i say maybe you could enlighten me and also as to why smith could beat barker.

Hold your horses son in what post did i say Smith could beat Barker ??? I think it would be a good close fight, and like you said that triangular logic means nothing really im not a massive smith fan myself but i think it would provide Barker with his biggest test to date, and to say Smith doesn't punch hard is ridiculous.

I was at the Barker VS Bendell fight, and if you WATCHED it, you would of seen Barker put Bendell on his backside in the first round, and his non-stop work rate led to the cut to Bendells eye.......
Barker would SMASH Smith, and would also humiliate anyone at domestic level......


Guys stop just focusing on boxers at the top, which results in you knowing absolutely nothing about prospects......

you said it was ridiculous to say barker schools smith i was giving my reasoning

i don't think smith is necessarily even british champion level. I'd take Elcock, McDermott and Barker at least to beat him. christ even Duddy could manage it

i think barker is british - euro level

and with the various concentration/style type issues smith has i think a win for barker could/would be a wide one, Watson vs Matt Hatton style. i think barker could go in and out on smith all night pop pop bang slide away

plus I didn't say Smith 'doesn't punch hard', I said he fights like he's a one punch knockout artist like McLellan or something when he doesn't hit THAT hard.

DTG- I agree and Ithangyew good sir 8) :P

I think Barker is a bit special, plus His head might be sorted out now.

DuranTheGreat wrote:I was at the Barker VS Bendell fight, and if you WATCHED it, you would of seen Barker put Bendell on his backside in the first round, and his non-stop work rate led to the cut to Bendells eye.......
Barker would SMASH Smith, and would also humiliate anyone at domestic level......


Guys stop just focusing on boxers at the top, which results in you knowing absolutely nothing about prospects......

What are you on about ??? we wasn't discussing prospects so how would you know we know nothing about them ?? also who is at the top Barker..... no , Smith...... no, your post makes no sense.

Counter-puncher wrote:you said it was ridiculous to say barker schools smith i was giving my reasoning

i don't think smith is necessarily even british champion level. I'd take Elcock, McDermott and Barker at least to beat him. christ even Duddy could manage it

i think barker is british - euro level

and with the various concentration/style type issues smith has i think a win for barker could/would be a wide one, Watson vs Matt Hatton style. i think barker could go in and out on smith all night pop pop bang slide away

plus I didn't say Smith 'doesn't punch hard', I said he fights like he's a one punch knockout artist like McLellan or something when he doesn't hit THAT hard.

DTG- I agree and Ithangyew good sir 8) :P

Ok lets agree to disagree, i'm not saying Barker wouldn't beat Smith but you are making out it would be like Calzaghe v Manfredo

haha i take your point

actually i think it could be more like calzaghe lacy a fight that on paper *should* be close but only because one of the fighters in the equation is horribly over-rated

DuranTheGreat wrote: would also humiliate anyone at domestic level......

if you say so!

Counter-puncher wrote:haha i take your point

actually i think it could be more like calzaghe lacy a fight that on paper *should* be close but only because one of the fighters in the equation is horribly over-rated

and which one is that then ???????? DD

its a line i've used before and seen before but Paul Smith isn't even the best prospect in his own family

We are discussing a prospect...... so I'm making a generalisation about how little you know about Barker to the fact that you will probably know nothing about other prospects......

DuranTheGreat wrote:We are discussing a prospect...... so I'm making a generalisation about how little you know about Barker to the fact that you will probably know nothing about other prospects......

Duran do me a favour ?

Scrap wrote:I think Barker is a bit special, plus His head might be sorted out now.

The truth

Barker just gets better and better for me.

I'd love him to fight Duddy.

mark thompson wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Barker would school Smith. IMO. Smith makes too many mistakes.

Barker certainly would not school Smith thats a ridiculous comment !

Barker's vastly superiro.

I think there is some kind of mass hysteria going on here.

He's good, but not top, top class.

Do you remember the Larry Sharpe fight - a guy Scott Dann knocked out.

Paul Samuels - had him rocked.

Two more words: Conroy McIntosh.

He seems a top bloke and has come through a lot by the sounds of it. He is decent and has a nice style to watch, but he's not going to get up there with Froch and Haye.

Larry Sharpe; Barker beat Sharpe more emphatically then Dann did. Yes, Dann managed to stop Sharpe, but only after he had struggled to look good against him. Barker won every round against Sharpe (except the last one when he took the foot off the gas to coast home).

Paul Samuels; Yes, Samuels may have rocked Barker for a split second, but the fact that the following left hook Barker threw knocked out Samuels and left him on the canvas needing oxygen puts that fight in perspective. Barker surely wasn't too shaken if he was able to do that?

Conroy McIntosh; The thing that annoys about the McIntosh fight, is that people forget that McIntosh did exactly the same to Paul Smith in his previous fight, but no-one ever talks about that. The difference is Barker went on to stop McIntosh whilst Smith got off the floor and only managed to win on points. This is another reason why Darren Barker is seen as a better fighter then Paul Smith.




Unfortunately Darren won't be fighting for the British title in his next fight as Wayne Elcock will be defending the title against Jason McKay on the Froch v Pascal undercard on 6 December...........but Darren Barker's time WILL come!