greeter fighter - Duran or Ali

He was past his best after not being allowed to box professional f

Respectfully this is revisionism on steroids. No athlete can be prohibited from practicing his craft from the ages of 26-29 which are the prime years for any athlete and be the same. Floyd Patterson and George Chuvalo who both fought the pre and post exile versions of Ali said the pre-exile version was faster. Quarry who you cited said the pre exile version was faster. Ken Norton said the pre exile version was faster. It's a consensus his legs were largely gone. He was your quintessential reflex fighter. Every year is a dog year. Look at Roy Jones Junior when his reflexes diminished. If welterweight was such an unnatural weight for Duran why did he stay there and even go up in weight?

 

You can literally see that Duran was a bit flabbier at WW in just about all of his fights there aside from against Adolfo Viruet where he was only 142 lbs and Leonard when he had trained himself to the bone. The man was not a natural welter. And Ali had just cleaned out the whole division in the time in between FOTC and the Rumble in the Jungle, he certainly was not his 60's self but by the time he fought foreman he had already shooken off the rust and had performed incredibly against his rematches with Quarry and Norton. Duran was more handicapped than Ali.

 

Prior to the exile he

How can a twenty nine year old man be more handicapped than a fighter who wasn't allowed to fight professionally at the age of 25, 26, 27, and 28 and was now fighting a man who was 24 when he was 32? He was 29-0 prior to his exile and 15-2 in his post exile career when he faced Big George with those 2 losses coming from boxers George Foreman obliterated:


At the time George Foreman was thought to be the most unbeatable and invincible heavyweight champion in history. He demolished “Smokin” Joe Frazier in two rounds to capture the undisputed title in January of 1973. This was the same Frazier that Ali had to fight twice before he could claim a victory over him. In his second defense of the title Foreman mutilated Ken Norton in less than two full rounds in March of 1974, and yes, Ali needed to fight Norton twice before he could say he beat him. So the back-story for the “Rumble In The Jungle” was this: the only two fighters who ever defeated Ali just so happened to be two of Foreman’s easiest and most impressive victories. Foreman was often quoted saying in the weeks before the fight, “I hit a guy and it’s like magic. You see him crumbling to the floor. It is a gift from God.” And there were many astute boxing observers who saw Ali being the victim of the same fate. In fact it led George to believe that there was no way he could lose to Ali and it probably wouldn’t even be his toughest fight. If ever there was a supremely confident fighter before an historic bout, it was George Foreman before he fought Muhammad Ali.

https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-b...ted-on-the-40th-anniversary-of-foreman-vs-ali

It was one of the greatest upsets in boxing history. Don't take my word for it. I have a dog in this fight. Take the word of the experts:

The Greatest Upsets In Boxing History
https://www.google.com/search?q=big...l3j0i22i30.10822j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Muhammad Ali owns two of them.

 

You overestimate Ali's decline. Ali was not successful in the 60's just because of reflexes and speed, he had a great sense of distance and timing, a very high ring IQ, was very good at feinting and had a great jab. None of these qualities eroded after the exile, he only declined physically and not as much as you make it seem. He couldn't dance for 15 rounds anymore but he still had great stamina, he was slower but still very fast, and still had all these qualities I mentioned before. You also overestimate Foreman, Frazier had already burned his flame at FOTC and was taylor made for him anyway, and Norton always had a vulmerable chin. Foreman looked so devastating because he looked the part against the best possible opponents. Benitez alone is better than Foreman, Leonard is an entire stratosphere above him.

Duran on the other hand ? He skipped 140 entirely and went to 147, and as I said before, was flabbier in almost all of his fights there. While still a hard puncher, his power didn't have anywhere near the same effect it had at 135, and a lot of people thought that he was rapidly declining during his WW run before he beat Leonard. As to why he moved up and stayed, it's simple. Duran originally skipped 140 and went straight to WW because he mainly wanted to fight Leonard and get higher pay days, after No Mas he was mentally crushed and was far too lazy and unmotivated to seriously train hard for most of his fights. He was an overweight mess when he was around super middle and Light Heavy. A man like that is not a natural middle or welter, which is why he stayed at Lightweight through 99% of his prime. Duran beating Leonard is simply more impressive than Ali beating Foreman if you look at it objectively.

 

I gave you a list of greatest upsets in boxing history. Ali owns two of them. Duran owns none of them. Here is the list again.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gre...l4j69i60l2.20738j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Muhammad Ali owns two of them. His upset over Liston and his upset over Foreman. Roberto Duran owns none of them. The Leonard-Duran fight is not on the list so obviously Ali was a much bigger underdog than Duran.

And you can not fairly evaluate Muhammad Ali's career without separating the work he did in the ring prior to his exile and the work he did in his return. We need to look no further than what happens to a fighter who relies on his reflexes and when those reflexes start slowing than to Roy Jones Junior. Muhammad Ali did his best work after his prime. No other athlete I'm aware of can make that claim.

 

There's no reason to equate the phrases bigger upset and better win.

They're two different things entirely.

Lara-Warrington I was a far bigger upset than Saddler-Pep II. Does that make it a better win?

 

What makes one win in any sport greater than another win is the difference in expectations of what would happen and what actually happened. Nobody would be talking about the Miracle On Ice if the Russians won.

 

The quality of an upset doesn't equate to the quality of a win. If that's the case then Douglas beating Tyson is the best win in boxing history.

 

Which HW win do you consider superior?

 

Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson was more impressive than Roberto Duran beating Sugar Ray Leonard. Nobody believed Douglas was Tyson's equal before the fight. Lots of people still don't believe it. They believe Buster just caught Tyson on the right night or wrong night depending on your perspective.

 

So beating an unprepared Tyson, who had been facing personal problems and couldn't commit and decsipline himself to training is now better than a prime Sugar Ray Leonard ? No way in hell.

 

There are no divisions for Ali to jump up to so you can only give Duran so many points for moving up to face Leonard.

Foreman wasn't as skilled as Leonard but Leonard didn't hit as hard as Foreman. See how that works? You can't say Leonard was a tougher assignment because he was more skilled while ignoring the fact Foreman was a completely different type of boxer (a slugger) and a very hard hitting one. He was extremely dangerous.

We'll just have to disagree that Duran beating Leonard is the more impressive win. I also disagree Frazier beating Ali was better because Ali was coming off a long layoff and only had two fights. I stand by the notion rumble in the jungle is the best win in history. Odds are definitely important in factoring how good a win is historically. It's why Douglas beating Tyson is an amazing signature win even though the rest of Douglas career and his overall ranking isn't that great. If Ali was written off and the odds weren't in his favor it makes the win better than if the odds were even or if he was favored.

Compare Ali against Folley or Williams to the Ali of the Norton fights. If you still believe Ali wasn't that far from his athletic prime then I don't know what to say to you honestly. You are making every excuse for Duran while ignoring that Ali was even older than him for their signature wins and had a long layoff. It's inarguable Ali was past his best.

No I wasn't claiming he was a zombie against Foreman. I'm saying even before the rumble be was slowing down in his reflexes and energy. After the rumble he started declining rather rapidly. Duran was in much better shape post Leonard than Ali was post Foreman and Duran had more in the tank.

I didn't heavily imply that at all. I just spelled it out for you but you insist on claiming I was saying something else. At no point was I suggesting Duran desperately needs the Leonard win to be considered a hall of famer so cut it out, no one with two brain cells with the slightest bit of knowledge on Durans career thinks that.

I don't care if no other lightweight could have beat those opponents. Those WERE his best opponents and he lost to the majority of them while Ali didn't lose to the majority of his best opponents. You are giving Duran props for moving up and beating Leonard but when he loses it's ok because he was moving up facing bigger skilled guys. You're trying to have it both ways.

 

Nobody gave Buster Douglas a chance. If Roberto Duran showed the heart Buster Douglas did in Tokyo he wouldn't have quit in New Orleans.

 

Doesn't matter, It's only great in retrospect of Douglas's career, it's not an impressive win in terms of the quality of fighter he beat, because that version of Tyson did not have the goods. A focused and disciplined Tyson demolishes douglas. That's what matters in Boxing, the quality of the fighter that you beat, not the quality of the upset. People thought that Douglas didn't stand a chance against their idea of Tyson, not the Tyson who showed up that night. The odds do not matter a single bit, their only purpose is for people to bet money and for possible future underdog stories.