Was Iran Barkley an A level fighter?

[Amsterdam]

:think :think :think

In more discussions about resume's, Toney's came up the other day and someone stated that Iran Barkley was among Toney's signature victories along with Jirov, McCallum, Nunn and the rest. Bear in mind that I am a big fan of James Toney and rate him as an ATG fighter without a doubt and wins over Jirov and McCallum were serious victories when he won them, but Barkley?

I'll also note that the poster who was debating this with me didn't like it when I said Barkley was at best a B level fighter.

Why is Barkley mentioned as a signature win? It was not this case alone, it's everytime someone mentions Toney's best wins, they mention the B- level Iran Barkley, which boggles my mind on why he's considered a serious win.

Barkley a well known 'name', he was by no means an elite fighter at MW-SMW or even a serious contender in my opinion and by the time he got to the Toney, he was a journeyman level fighter essentially, who's claim to fame was beating a well past it Hearns twice, once by lucky KO and the other by a controversial split decision, and Hearns who's best weight was 154 mind you.

If Barkley was truly a serious resume mark, then why does nobody mention Benn blasting him out in a single round as a serious mark on Benn's resume?:lol:

[Toopretty]

He was a B level fighter...and your idiot moronic tail is now trying to discredit Toney...shut up...Toney takes a huge shit on Calzaghe in any aspect of competition criteria....NO matter what you say retard.

[Amsterdam]

He was a B level fighter...and your idiot moronic tail is now trying to discredit Toney...shut up...Toney takes a huge shit on Calzaghe in any aspect of competition criteria....NO matter what you say retard.

No, try again. I am not discrediting Toney and gave Toney a fair bit of credit if you would have read through it.

What I am discrediting are idiots who cannot assess a resume correctly, but act as if resume is the law on rating fighters and picking them in fantasy matches. I would have even brought this up had I not seen Barkley mentioned as a signature win, as if it were something special, when all it was at that point was Toney brutalising a name journeyman level exciting ex-fringe contender.

But the people that mention him act as if the resume is the law on rating fighters, yet they count Barkley as a serious win in his resume.

Keep in mind, resume is ABSOLUTELY important in rating a fighter, but when it's assessed correctly. Such as looking past circle jerking senior circuit squads...

:p

[Zakman]

Barkley an A level fighter?? :huh HELL NO! :-(

[box03]

No I dont feel he was a A level fighter by any means, but he was an exciting fighter who always came to fight. He was the kind of guy you knew was a animal in the streets he had that type of mindset in the ring, and you can never count him out in a fight knowing he was always one hook away from ending any elite fighters night on any given day. Hes the epitome of tough and always fought the best in his division, his high loss percentage proves that.

[Toopretty]

No, try again. I am not discrediting Toney and gave Toney a fair bit of credit if you would have read through it.

What I am discrediting are idiots who cannot assess a resume correctly, but act as if resume is the law on rating fighters and picking them in fantasy matches. I would have even brought this up had I not seen Barkley mentioned as a signature win, as if it were something special, when all it was at that point was Toney brutalising a name journeyman level exciting ex-fringe contender.

But the people that mention him act as if the resume is the law on rating fighters, yet they count Barkley as a serious win in his resume.

:p

Then Benns resume is really horse shit then..that means Mccllelan and Eubank one time is his biggest wins...lol...I what other fighters did he beat that were better then Barkley who was a B level slugger.

[Executioner]

Not an A....B, I'd say. To me, Barkley is one of the most accomplished fighters with the least talent.

[Amsterdam]

Barkley an A level fighter?? :huh HELL NO! :-(

Precisely. He was B- at best.

Now, when I stated that Barkley was a B- and truly not comparable to the other names on Toney's resume, the poster immediatley shot that one down as if I were ignorant for saying such.

[Amsterdam]

Then Benns resume is really horse shit then..that means Mccllelan and Eubank one time is his biggest wins...lol...I what other fighters did he beat that were better then Barkley who was a B level slugger.

Benn has a very good resume, especially if you count Barkley as a signature win of any type.:yep

I mean, he did deal with him like you should with a journeyman level opponent....

[Toopretty]

Benn has a very good resume, especially if you count Barkley as a signature win of any type.:yep

I mean, he did deal with him like you should with a journeyman level opponent....

Very good resume..Ok so if your best win is over Mcclellan and Barkley.Then that is not a good resume..As I recall he got his ass knocked out a few times as well.:nut

[Toopretty]

Damned Brits..over hallucinating asses

[nervousxtian]

Amsterdam, stop over-analyzing Boxrec.

[Amsterdam]

[quote=Amsterdam]:think :think :think
. Bear in mind that I am a big fan of James Toney and rate him as an ATG fighter without a doubt and wins over Jirov and McCallum were serious victories when he won them, but Barkley?

McCallum was 35 years old way past his prime and a Prime beast Toney had a hard time. I wouldnt call his victory over McCallum serious

Sure it was, McCallum was still game and was still a notable fighter.

[Lance_Uppercut]

I wouldn't say he was an A level fighter, but he's still done more then Joe C has (but barely)...

[Amsterdam]

Amsterdam, stop over-analyzing Boxrec.

NervousXtian, develop your own opinions and viewpoints.

[Amsterdam]

2Div champs, he fought decent fights. He is on the level of De La Hoya today except that Barkley was able to have a defining win by a KO vs an ATG. And De La Hoya had a lubed up career

DLH has a defining stoppage over an even fresher ATG than Hearns was, both were also dominative wins, not a lucky KO and controversial decision.

And if you want to talk about winning titles in weight divisions...

[Lance_Uppercut]

DLH has a defining stoppage over an even fresher ATG than Hearns was, both were also dominative wins, not a lucky KO and controversial decision.

And if you want to talk about winning titles in weight divisions...

:huh

PLease don't tell me you mean Chavez.

[Amsterdam]

:huh

PLease don't tell me you mean Chavez.

Chavez was worse in the mid 90's than Hearns was in the early 90's?:think

[El Bombasto]

Too many loses to be considered A Class, but he definitely had Hearns's number

[bigtime9]

Chavez was worse in the mid 90's than Hearns was in the early 90's?:think

lance you just got owned again:rofl

[Lance_Uppercut]

Chavez was worse in the mid 90's than Hearns was in the early 90's?:think

Barkley beat Hearns in late 80's. Hearns went on and had some sucess after. Chavez didn't after his first loss to Goldy.

[PowerPuncher]

Not A Class but on the level of a Mayorga or a Junior Jones or a Forrest or a Hatton perhaps. Only the best beat him

[Lance_Uppercut]

lance you just got owned again:rofl
:patsch

Barkely beat Hearns in 1988, who then went on to capture a couple more division titles and had more sucess then Chavez did.

Owned? I don't think so. You'll kiss anyone ass won't ya.:roll:

[Lance_Uppercut]

Guess this is closed now? :huh

[Amsterdam]

Barkley beat Hearns in late 80's. Hearns went on and had some sucess after. Chavez didn't after his first loss to Goldy.

But there is a difference between scoring a lucky KO and thrashing your opponent, the of course a different between thrashing your opponent and winning a controversial decision.

On top of that, Chavez was really no worse, the DLH thrashing was the final nail in the coffin and Chavez's style prevented any more success.

It's absurd to compare Barkley to DLH.

[kg0208]

Precisely. He was B- at best.

Now, when I stated that Barkley was a B- and truly not comparable to the other names on Toney's resume, the poster immediatley shot that one down as if I were ignorant for saying such.

No one called him A level. I said he wasn't B- level. And he isn't. B level maybe. B- level at BEST means you think he could be C level, and he was no where near that.

[Amsterdam]

No one called him A level. I said he wasn't B- level. And he isn't. B level maybe. B- level at BEST means you think he could be C level, and he was no where near that.

Is Ricardo Mayorga B level? Barkley is a bit lesser than he. B-.

Regardless, is this a signature win for Toney?

If so, why is it not for Benn? Who blasted him out in a round before Toney brutalised him.

[kg0208]

Is Ricardo Mayorga B level? Barkley is a bit lesser than he. B-.

Regardless, is this a signature win for Toney?

If so, why is it not for Benn? Who blasted him out in a round before Toney brutalised him.

I wasn't discussing Benn's resume at the time. I was discussing Toney's and Calzaghe's.

Benn's resume isn't relevant.

Mayorga is no better than Barkley. You can say that if you want, but it doesn't make it true. And you can't base it on accomplishments by saying Mayorga did more because you said that resumes don't prove much. If they did, we would have been comparing Kessler to Michael Nunn now would we?

[Blacc Jesus]

Hell naw!

[SteveO]

Beating Tommy Hearns twice does not make him A list. His resume is interesting, though. Beating Hearns twice, losing to Toney, Duran, and Trevor Berbick.

[DanePugilist]

Barkley was B lvl at best. He beat some formerly great fighters, and created some "upsets", though the background was somewhat painted.

However, Toney should not acclaim appraisal for the win, if Barkley had already been blasted in one round - that immensely silly. If he should, then Benn should acclaim even more, for doing it before Toney and more convincingly. Benn>Toney?

[Amsterdam]

I wasn't discussing Benn's resume at the time. I was discussing Toney's and Calzaghe's.

Benn's resume isn't relevant.

Mayorga is no better than Barkley. You can say that if you want, but it doesn't make it true. And you can't base it on accomplishments by saying Mayorga did more because you said that resumes don't prove much. If they did, we would have been comparing Kessler to Michael Nunn now would we?

Well, I'd argue that Kessler is superior to Michael Nunn all the way around and backwards through the tunnel and barn, while setting the house on fire and rolling around in the grass with the farmers daughter.

Benn's resume is relevant, because when it is discussed, there is no mention of Barkley. When Toney's is discussed, there is always a mention of Barkley.

Why is this? I'd say Benn's win is more impressive, considering he dealt with a shaky chinned, B- level fighter like a top class P4P hitter would, wouldn't you say?

Resume is VERY important, you just miss the point that some people do not assess them correctly and put certain fighters on pedastool's while totally lacking the ability to analyse many important factors.

[MSTR]

No, try again. I am not discrediting Toney and gave Toney a fair bit of credit if you would have read through it.

What I am discrediting are idiots who cannot assess a resume correctly, but act as if resume is the law on rating fighters and picking them in fantasy matches. I would have even brought this up had I not seen Barkley mentioned as a signature win, as if it were something special, when all it was at that point was Toney brutalising a name journeyman level exciting ex-fringe contender.

But the people that mention him act as if the resume is the law on rating fighters, yet they count Barkley as a serious win in his resume.

Keep in mind, resume is ABSOLUTELY important in rating a fighter, but when it's assessed correctly. Such as looking past circle jerking senior circuit squads...

:p
No he definitely wasn't A level. Good post BTW, I like the part that emphasised the importance of analyzing resume correctly. I think this is the biggest factor, in deciding the ability of a fighter. Not just looking at the resume, but how they beat the opponents, and what stage of their career they were in at the time of the fight. Barkly looked VERY sloppy against Toney IMO, and was dominated.

[kg0208]

Well, I'd argue that Kessler is superior to Michael Nunn all the way around and backwards through the tunnel and barn, while setting the house on fire and rolling around in the grass with the farmers daughter.

Benn's resume is relevant, because when it is discussed, there is no mention of Barkley. When Toney's is discussed, there is always a mention of Barkley.

Why is this? I'd say Benn's win is more impressive, considering he dealt with a shaky chinned, B- level fighter like a top class P4P hitter would, wouldn't you say?

Resume is VERY important, you just miss the point that some people do not assess them correctly and put certain fighters on pedastool's while totally lacking the ability to analyse many important factors.

It isn't relevant because you were not discussing it with ME. So you don't know if I would have mentioned it or not.

You can assess Kessler that way all you like. Nunn would have beaten Kessler.

[Amsterdam]

No he definitely wasn't A level. Good post BTW, I like the part that emphasised the importance of analyzing resume correctly. I think this is the biggest factor, in deciding the ability of a fighter. Not just looking at the resume, but how they beat the opponents, and what stage of their career they were in at the time of the fight. Barkly looked VERY sloppy against Toney IMO, and was dominated.

Precisely, and Benn blew out Barkley in 1 round mind you, but this is rarely mentioned as a signature win, but always is for James Toney.:D

Resume's need to include how the bouts were contested and losses as well, this is why I don't rate Jermain Taylor, to me his resume is utter piss for a so called Undisputed MW Champion, because I take in the fact that he got gifts over the two elite's, and on my card drew with Cory Spinks.

[MSTR]

Just to add though, Barkley did have some good fights, and reminds me in a lot of ways of Gatti. A guy who won world titles, and was a very tough guy, but didn't possess the skills to carry him on further.

[Amsterdam]

It isn't relevant because you were not discussing it with ME. So you don't know if I would have mentioned it or not.

You can assess Kessler that way all you like. Nunn would have beaten Kessler.

How's he going to do that? Close fight with Barkley, losing to Liles isn't a good indication from my viewpoint.

He cannot control the pace of the bout, therefore he fights Kessler's pace and is at the mercy of Kessler's control behind the jab and he lacks the sufficient KO power to turn the bout and keep it honest.

Because he was outboxing Toney he beats Kessler? He's at a terrible stylistic disadvantage against MK.

This is the absurdity that we have to live with.

[kg0208]

How's he going to do that? Close fight with Barkley, losing to Liles isn't a good indication from my viewpoint.

He cannot control the pace of the bout, therefore he fights Kessler's pace and is at the mercy of Kessler's control behind the jab and he lacks the sufficient KO power to turn the bout and keep it honest.

Because he was outboxing Toney he beats Kessler? He's at a terrible stylistic disadvantage against MK.

This is the absurdity that we have to live with. The only thing I see here that's absurd is your arrogance to believe that every analysis you make is the correct one.

Simply put, I think your wrong. If you think I am....no skin off my back. Nunn was a better fighter than Kessler.

[Amsterdam]

The only thing I see here that's absurd is your arrogance to believe that every analysis you make is the correct one.

Simply put, I think your wrong. If you think I am....no skin off my back. Nunn was a better fighter than Kessler.

The absurdity is that if Mikkel Kessler were to dominate the rest of his time at 168 and keep with his consistency, move up to LHW and dominate and this includes a big win over Chad Dawson and maybe Erdei, getting him another 8 wins that are notable and not even competitive, then you'd concede that he was a better fighter than Michael Nunn.

OF COURSE, we can just compare tape between two boxers who worked behind the jab.

However, I am telling you that if he recieves the oppurtunity to do what I have stated above, he will pull through like I have stated above and this is so simply to forecast if studying the sport within depth was a big part of being a fan, but it makes no difference, Nunn would beat Kessler even though he's at an intense stylistic disadvantage.

I guess Nunn would beat Kessler just because he's a more well known 'imprint' within history.

I could just as easily say Nunn would beat Bob Foster, but that would be considered ludicrous, because Foster would spark Nunn in a few rounds.

[kg0208]

The absurdity is that if Mikkel Kessler were to dominate the rest of his time at 168 and keep with his consistency, move up to LHW and dominate and this includes a big win over Chad Dawson and maybe Erdei, getting him another 8 wins that are notable and not even competitive, then you'd concede that he was a better fighter than Michael Nunn.

OF COURSE, we can just compare tape between two boxers who worked behind the jab.

However, I am telling you that if he recieves the oppurtunity to do what I have stated above, he will pull through like I have stated above and this is so simply to forecast if studying the sport within depth was a big part of being a fan, but it makes no difference, Nunn would beat Kessler even though he's at an intense stylistic disadvantage.

I guess Nunn would beat Kessler just because he's a more well known 'imprint' within history.

I could just as easily say Nunn would beat Bob Foster, but that would be considered ludicrous, because Foster would spark Nunn in a few rounds.

It would be ludicrous because of what Foster would bring to the table.

If Kessler does all you said, he may very well be considered greater than Nunn. It doesn't mean he would beat him. Stop trying to point out others opinions and place them in some important stature with my own.

SRR has done more than most fighters in any weight class. But there are fighters who could beat him and I have picked fighters to beat him. Thus I have already proven that I don't just take into account historical greatness and imprint.

Stop trying to mix things in that have nothing to do with what I said. I don't care what others said.

[Lance_Uppercut]

But there is a difference between scoring a lucky KO and thrashing your opponent, the of course a different between thrashing your opponent and winning a controversial decision.

On top of that, Chavez was really no worse, the DLH thrashing was the final nail in the coffin and Chavez's style prevented any more success.

It's absurd to compare Barkley to DLH.

We weren't comparing DLH to Barkely, it was the guy they beat at their times, Hearns and Chavez. Did you lose track or something? Or were you going to try to argue or spin this into something else OTHER then what you posted. :roll:

[ripcity]

He was good and had some good wins but not an A level boxer.

[Lance_Uppercut]

De La hoya never won any defininng fight vs any ATG in his prime!
* he got owned by an old Pee Wee.
* B Hops gave him the wawa..
* Chavez was washed out and 2 divisions north of his prime. Hearns was ATG in both fight the reignning Champion.

If Barkley had the lube job that De La Hoya had, he will be ranked higher than De La hoya by miles:deal

Can't rank too much on the "if" factor, but I certainly do not disagree with most of what you say.

[magnificentdave]

barkley has a better resume than calzaghe

["TKO"]

Barkley was not an A-level fighter but certainly a very good B-level fighter, better than most of the world champs around today. His power, heart and aggression made him what he was, skills left a bit to be desired. His high loss percentage is a direct result of fighting on way too long at the end of his career (he won 1 of his last 9 bouts). In his prime (85-93), he was a hell of a fighter. Just looking at the quality of the only men who beat him in that period tells you all you need to know: Kalambay, Duran, Nunn, Benn and Toney. In the same period he beat, amongst others, Randy Smith, Sanderline Williams, Wilfred Scypion, James Kinchen, Michael Olajide, Hearns twice and Darrin Van Horn. The Toney fight, I think, finished him as a serious contender, but in his prime nobody (except Benn) had an easy night with him.

[Guru_Too_You]

:think :think :think

In more discussions about resume's, Toney's came up the other day and someone stated that Iran Barkley was among Toney's signature victories along with Jirov, McCallum, Nunn and the rest. Bear in mind that I am a big fan of James Toney and rate him as an ATG fighter without a doubt and wins over Jirov and McCallum were serious victories when he won them, but Barkley?

I'll also note that the poster who was debating this with me didn't like it when I said Barkley was at best a B level fighter.

Why is Barkley mentioned as a signature win? It was not this case alone, it's everytime someone mentions Toney's best wins, they mention the B- level Iran Barkley, which boggles my mind on why he's considered a serious win.

Barkley a well known 'name', he was by no means an elite fighter at MW-SMW or even a serious contender in my opinion and by the time he got to the Toney, he was a journeyman level fighter essentially, who's claim to fame was beating a well past it Hearns twice, once by lucky KO and the other by a controversial split decision, and Hearns who's best weight was 154 mind you.

If Barkley was truly a serious resume mark, then why does nobody mention Benn blasting him out in a single round as a serious mark on Benn's resume?:lol:

Its a signature win for Toney, not because Barkley was an A level fighter, but because James systematically butchered Iran that night a la Mayweather-Gatti or Calzaghe-Lacy.

It was BRUTAL, and thats the reason that bout is brought up when discussing Toney, and using the comparison from before, the same way a fan might say PBF-Gatti was one of Floyd's signature wins.

[nervousxtian]

..and nobody brings up Barkley as a win for Benn, because when is the last fucking time we ever talked about Nigel Benn. He's not talked about much, so it never comes up.

I love the Barkley/Gatti comparison, very fitting actually, both overachievers who fought anyone, and had a lot of heart and threw a good punch.