Steel vs. Stone: Iran Barkley vs. Roberto Duran

Enter your Steel vs. Stone: Iran Barkley vs. Roberto Duran fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: 9%
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Steel vs. Stone: Iran Barkley vs. Roberto Duran
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
4.833335
Average: 4.8 (6 votes)

Date: 
Friday, February 24, 1989
Location: 
Atlantic City, NJ
Rounds Scheduled: 
12
Contracted Weight: 
160
Titles at Stake: 
WBC Middleweight Championship
Referee: 
Joe Cortez

Official Judging
Giuseppe Ferrari 118 - 112
Tom Kaczmarek 116 - 112
Dave Brown 113 - 116

More:



Barkley had won the WBC Middleweight crown by KO'ing Thomas Hearns. Then he ran into Hands of Stone in his first defense.
1989 Ring Magazine Fight of the Year




Averaged Fan Card:

round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Roberto Duran
                                                                    
9.78
9.07
9.85
9.35
9.14
9.07
9.50
8.92
9.92
10
10
9.64
Iran Barkley
                                                                    
9.21
9.92
9.14
9.78
9.85
9.92
9.57
10
9.07
9
8
9.35


Fan Cards: Steel vs. Stone: Iran Barkley vs. Roberto Duran


scorecard by GOLD
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
115
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
112


scorecard by RORSCHACH
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
113
IRAN BARKLEY
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
8
10
114


scorecard by LUKASZRPB
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
113


scorecard by COREY WILLINGER
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
113


scorecard by BOXING KNOWLEDGE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
9
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
9
9
8
10
113


scorecard by MIKE25
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
114
IRAN BARKLEY
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
8
9
113


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
115
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
8
9
112


scorecard by TALESFROMTHECRYPT
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
113


scorecard by HAG75
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
115
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
10
114


scorecard by GLASSJOE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
113


scorecard by KOUFAX75
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
8
10
10
10
9
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
8
10
113


scorecard by ORRIRAY59
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
115
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
9
8
9
112


scorecard by ZAC.RJ
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
9
114
IRAN BARKLEY
9
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
9
8
10
113


scorecard by 667SAUL
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROBERTO DURAN
9
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
115
IRAN BARKLEY
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
9
112


Comments

Great fight, I scored it close but clear for Duran. The knockdown in the eleventh round really sealed the deal.

Champion97's picture

I would be interested to find out what you thought Duran did to clearly win the fight.

It would probably be because Duran's shots were the harder of the fight. Also probably because Duran hurt Barkley a lot more than Barkley was hurting him. Probably just preferences.

This really was a pick your flavor fight. You prefer activity so it's not too much of a surprise that you had it 9-3 for Barkley. He probably prefers hard hitting and whoever takes more punishment, in that case it shouldn't really be a surprise that he thought Duran won clearly.

Champion97's picture

Hey Alex, how are you?

I'm going to make a statement, you may not agree with me, but this is what a think, you are a massive Duran fan (the Duran who fought at lightweight and was the best Duran that ever existed), and you are extra quick too defend him because you are such a big fan.

Let's just assume that we are on the same page, in my book 'clearly' means definitively, it means there is no fair case to be made that they didn't win, I totally agree about this fight being about which flavour you prefer, but if you prefer harder punches to technical skills and landed counts then although I can understand why you score the fight for the harder puncher I don't know why that makes it 'clear', you have every right to score the fight how you like, but judges need to accept that other judges favour different styles and because of this and the fact that both men beat each other in different departments and it could go either way it is not clear, so it is no surprise he thought he won, but it is not fair to say Duran clearly won, it was either not clear but you favoured Duran, or it was not clear but you favoured Barkley, I said in my analysis that although I had it 116-113 for Barkley I would not argue with that score the other way. I think you will agree with me when I say that if 2 boxers fight 12 rounds, one of them lands a great deal more but the other one lands much harder and hurts their opponent more than they themselves were hurt then this can never, ever be called clear either way. Do you know what I mean?

I don't know about extra quick, that comment it took me two months to answer that comment after all.

Regardless though, I know what you mean, but at the same time the scorer (I forgot his name) probably doesn't analyze boxing as much as you or I probably do. As you know with most judges they are set on their beliefs on how boxing should work, like hard punching for instance, and they have a hard time viewing the sport from different angles.

Your absolutely right though, but its hard for some judges to look at fights from different perspectives. That's why (enter name) probably said it was a clear win for Duran. This makes perfect sense if you consider it from a hard punching standpoint, without viewing from an activity standpoint.

Oh and about your opinion on Today vs Past fighters. I would have to completely disagree. Its true that there are a lot of potentially great fighters, I honestly can't think of very many that would beat a past great, like Muhammad Ali, best two out of three. If you want my personal opinion I think Ali would make the best heavyweights of today look silly (like Joshua, Wilder, Fury, and Klitchsko) and to be honest I really can't see much of an argument or really any evidence that could prove me wrong. All four of those guys have faced mostly weak competition and haven't really beaten anyone that impressive.

I think Floyd would lose to Leanord also. I think Leanord's hands are faster, and Floyd has never faced a person that could stick and move as well as him. Probably a 116-112 decision I'd figure.

I could go further on why Manny Pacquiao would lose to Aaron Pryor, or why Salvador Sanchez would KO a prime Floyd Mayweather, but I have to be going now. I just think the argument that New is Better than old argument is too one-dimensional and I'll probably explain why later. And to make up for leaving you hanging on these comments for too long... here's a present Jonny.
http://thechive.com/2012/12/28/its-really-hard-to-say-but-i-think-these-...

Talk to you later Jonny.

Champion97's picture

You're right, I shouldn't have read too much into his probably casual comment, but I'm glad you agreed with what I said, I thought you would.

With the past vs today fighters I will argue about it, if you want, I don't mean a personal fallout with spiteful messages, I just mean interesting, healthy debate, I know you would read what I have to say, and respond calmly, I'm just confirming what the deal is with this very disagreed with opinion of mine, at the end of the day you have to mix it all in your mind and compare an Ali fight to a Wilder/Fury fight, don't you agree that there is so much more to boxing get nowadays, connect percentages are lower (meaning boxers have better defence, early rounds are tentative and involve more studying on both sides), I just think people work on game plans so much more, there is so much more technique, people work on angles etc, much more, if you listen to the commentary 40 years ago it seems to be all about who is winning and how exciting the fight is, but now it is so much more precise, I feel like analysts and fighters learn more all the time, the pure boxing side of it is extremely hard to explain, I might have to send you another message when I find the right words to explain exactly what I mean, but the other side applies to all sports, I believe Mo Farrah is the best long distance runner that ever lived, in a more interesting way of explaining it, I'm faster, fitter and stronger than my dad was when he was my age, if I have a son one day he will most likely be faster, fitter and stronger than me, I'm pretty sure I could say the same thing for you, there is a reason people are getting taller and life spans have increased, (and these two things are facts, not opinions), the reason is because people are healthier, and it can't be a fruitless point because if so then why would athletes even watch their diet?, can you honestly tell me that Ali's dietitian could have been in the same league as Anthony Joshua's?, and if you are going to tell me that if we somehow got Muhammad Ali and put him in this era then I could just say I could out smart Einstein if I had a brain transplant, receiving a new and much improved brain.

The Mayweather vs Leonard is an easier case for you to make because Leonard's era is nearer to Mayweather's, I just feel as if Mayweather's skills are something special, I think he has skills that no other fighter has ever had, that timing on his right hand, is impeccable, no fighter has ever had defence like he does, again, I have been bust recently and we will have to pick this argument up when my mind is fresh, but, I do like Sugar Ray Leonard, he was one of the best in his era, to be honest I think Hagler was better, but not much, and there is no shame in being slightly inferior to Marvin Hagler.

If you think my argument is one dimensional then I completely understand, from what I have previously explained it is one dimensional, but I have more to say about it, I will be happy to read why you think Pryor and Sanchez beat Pacquiao and Mayweather whenever you reply, which is when you want to reply, whenever.

About that little present, hmmm, what a naughty thing to send your friend with an innocent mind, haha, just kidding, I ain't got no innocent mind, I would say the hottest of them all is the blonde lass on the balcony.

BTW, would or agree or disagree that apart from maybe scrubs the big bang theory is the best comedy in the USA?

All right lets talk some boxing. The best way to handle this discussion would be as if we were in court where I am the defense and you are the prosecution. I will be defending the fighters of the past while you Champ will be prosecuting and explaining why they can't hold a candle to the fighters of the present. I want an intelligent conversation, no profanity, no conspiracies, just boxing. And probably talk about girls, television, world series predictions, the fight with the Big Chicken on Family Guy, and of coarse the Big Bang Theory afterwards.

Now the case before the floor is that there is more to boxing nowadays than there was in the past. The prosecution (you) suggests that overtime more tricks have been developed, people are naturally stronger, faster, and have a more controlled diet. While those are all valid points I will explain why most of the good fighters of the past would still beat most of the good fighters of today.

Case 1. More tricks?

The prosecution made the case that there is more too boxing and that commentators back then really only talked about how exciting the fight was. Now let's think for a second on why that may be.

Boxers as far as I'm aware didn't start to do commentary for boxing until I believe it was Archie Moore in the 70's, Joe Frazier did it a little in the 80's, and Sugar Ray Leonard did it a little too in the 80's to the present. I'm sure the prosecution would agree that it takes a fellow boxer to truly understand the intricacies of the sport, and the prosecution lives and has admitted to mostly watching boxing in an era where boxing commentators are the norm, so it should be no surprise that the prosecution would bring forth that boxing commentators often know more about boxing.

Now am I saying that non boxing commentators don't know anything about boxing? Not at all. Don Dumphry is one of the great ring analysts of all time and would always without bias discuss what each fighter is doing both right and wrong. Howard Cossel is another great analyst and on his best day he could call a fight as if he were reading a bed time story.

Sure in the early days of boxing where you had commentators whose names I can't remember and they would talk about the toughness of the fighters. In reality in the early 1920's boxing really was mostly a street fight, and it really wasn't until Gene Tunney that boxing became more technical. Gene Tunney was in the late 1920's and he showed the world all of the technical prowess your talking about; like movement, jabbing, cutting off the ring, all 8 punches, and so on. But even before then you had Jack Johnson showing off all of his technical prowess as well. By the time boxing hit the 1930's people knew how to box. Can the prosecution really claim that guys of today know more than Joe Louis? Barney Ross? Sugar Ray Robinson? Henry Armstrong? Willie Pep? The list goes on and on but if the prosecution would look at the tapes and truly analyzed them it would see no huge difference between fights of back then against today.

The great fighters of the past took the Jack Johnson and Gene Tunney blue print and perfected it.

I've spent the last 40 minutes on this comment so I'll let you read it and present your case.

Off of boxing; I really don't watch the Big Bang Theory anymore. I used to and Sheldon was my favorite but I really don't have the time for TV these days. Also, for me it was between five and 21 for the hottest girl in that last comment. What's your type Champ? Just curious. Personally I love redheads, prefer skinny to curvy, I think glasses are the biggest turn on a girl can have, I hate girls that wear flip flops, they have to be either really shy or really outgoing not in between, and I like girls that look really smart but are actually really clumsy.

What about yourself Champ?

Champion97's picture

Great fight.

rorschach's picture

I would be interested to find out the same.

Champion97's picture

Computer decided to double my comment.

Champion97's picture

Computer decided to triple my comment.

rorschach's picture

I remember thinking Barkley won this fight when I watched it as it happened.

rorschach's picture

Let's see what I come up with 28 years later.

rorschach's picture

Can't wait for Barkley vs Toney coming soon...

rorschach's picture

It is amazing Duran was still winning world titles in different weight classes at this point in his career.

rorschach's picture

Still had Barkley winning but much closer than I remember it being almost 30 years ago.