Not really. Ali might not be able to move up, but he is able to fight bigger fighters. He never fought one as good as Leonard, and never fought bigger fighters like Duran did. Watch Leonard close the gap against literally anyone he was trying to finish. He pounced on them with ridiculous speed and skill, and when he had somebody hurt, they very rarely survived. If Foreman was as good as it as Leonard was, he wouldn't have struggled to put away Peralta or lost against Young. Foreman was a much bigger puncher than Leonard, so naturally his body shots were also more brutal. But he wasn't a better body puncher, just a harder one. Leonard's left hook under the elbow, his bolo punch to the sternum and both his straights to the chest were brilliant punches and he used them as a far bigger part of his arsenal than Foreman used his. Not to mention, Leonard was far better at integrating them into combinations. Watch him tear Hearns apart in the late rounds with them. Leonard controlled a master's guard in Benitez and completely negated his amazing jab with his parrying. Foreman was nowhere near as good at parrying as Leonard was. There's no form of defence Foreman could do better than Leonard. And just because Leonard didn't come forward like Foreman did doesn't mean he couldn't bait people into falling for counters. He did it to Hagler and Duran for their whole fights. In fact, the reason why Duran pulled away from Leonard in their first fight is because he could do it better than Leonard, but Leonard was still much better at setting guys up than Foreman was. No they weren't they were almost exactly the same just watch them Obviously, Duran had more in the tank going into the fight, Duran-Leonard I is Duran's best performance. But he declined far quicker after than Ali did. Duran was up and down divisions, in-between various embarrassing losses and in and out of relative obscurity as a non-comtender. Ali stayed heavyweight champ for years after. The fact he later beat Barkley doesn't have any relevance. I ignore all losses, if you reread my previous posts in this thread, you'd know that. But I wouldn't be ignoring them because they happened against Duran's best opponents, I'd be ignoring them because he was either past his best, not in shape, or above his best weight, or in the case of a couple, all three. Same way how I don't diminish Ali for his losses to Frazier, Norton or Spinks. Got it? I was arguing specifically against this phrasing, I didn't say you said that. "Duran being picked for his "skill", yet he has more losses than wins against his best opponents." Duran's losses to Benitez, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler have nothing to with a lack of skill, as you imply. That's it, I'm drawing a line there, because we're just going round in circles and not even keeping to any one particular debate.
If you ignore a fighter's losses they go fron very good to amazing. Oscar De la Hoya is one of my favorite boxers. If you only focus on his wins against Sweet Pea, Ike Quartey and Juluio Chavez he goes from very good to amazing.
When you have a debate it's best to operationalize your terms. When judging a fight the criteria is: Effective aggression Defense Clean punching Ring generalship Defining a concept as amorphous as greatness entails an astounding level of difficulty but I'll try. My criteria: Gross wins and losses ( just looking at a boxer's wins and losses without regard to who he beat and what stage of his career he or his opponent were in) Skill Adversity. How much adversity did a boxer face in his career and how did he react to it. Level Of Competition - Did he fight all comers or come close to it and how did he and they perform without disregarding where they were in their careers. Impact -What was their impact on the sport of boxing, and other sportsmen and sportswomen in their chosen sport and other sports. And also for their impact on the broader culture.
Considering there's maybe a small handful of heavyweighs in the history of the division as good as Leonards overall ability (maybe Louis, Tyson and Holmes?), This doesn't seem like a fair trade off at all. Ali did fight the best big men available. Mathis, Terrell, Foreman, Bugner, Lyle, Listing. He passed with flying colors and none of them were dumb plodding cavemen they were decently skilled for heavies. 1) Foreman is a top 5-10 finisher in the history of heavyweighs and arguably a better finisher than Leonard. Stop it. You're seriously criticizing him for failing to stop young of all people? 2) it's irrelevant if Foreman is a bigger puncher than Leonard. Body shots require skill and timing and he had both he wasn't just waiting away at the mid section. Foreman also integrated them as part of his process for breaking guys down. You're basically just writing off any sign of skill because Foreman happened to be a big hitter even by heavyweight standards. 3) yeah if you're going to cite the Duran and Hagler fights as better examples of walking guys into shots than Foreman dismantling Frazier you need to put the Hennessy down. Even if you think they were, it's a significant difference between Zaire Ali and how he looked in the 60's. That's not even debatable. Extremely relevant because Barkley was a legitimate world level guys several divisions high. If Duran had moved up and beat a bum with a losing record it wouldn't mean much but he beat a strong prime champion. No one in boxing history moved up several divisions and beat a strong champion when they had practically nothing left in the tank. You mention Ali being champion for years while ignoring the fact the division was growing weaker and he had a few gifts like the Norton fight. Ali wasn't facing a murderer row in wepner or Leon. You're taking away some good wins for both if you do that. It's awfully convenient if you cut it off just before the exile because outside of Liston and Patterson, his record in his prime is kinda thin. How can we really determine who was greater if you exclude huge chunks of their careers? That goes back to what I said about picking and choosing when you want to credit Duran for moving up. You're being a little confusing here. You legit argued for several posts that guys in lower divisions should get credit for moving up when compared to heavies but you also want me to ignore difficult opponents he faced in higher divisions. The Leonard win also happens to have occurred in a higher division so what gives? Mayweather and Pac also moved up and beat larger skilled men.
I think, without a question, that Leonard in 1980 was a better fighter p4p than Foreman in 1974. I also think Duran was substantially closer to his prime in 1980 than Ali in 1974. His win over Leonard was also very close, whereas Ali took Foreman's soul and knocked him out. So all in all, I find it hard to say which I think was the best win. But try to imagine that Ali would quit without a scratch on him in a rematch five months later (or at any time). The thought is impossible isn't it? No matter how much "split second" the decision might be you just can't imagine Ali just giving up his championship because things weren't going quite his way and the guy he had ridiculed now was making him look bad. The very thought is preposterous. Well, there you have what really separates the two. Both were incredible fighters with incredible achievements, but one did a thing that you can't even imagine the other guy doing.
This obviously contributes to a boxer's legend. But I don't think it should be a factor when rating their career or skills.
I included skill as one of my criteria for greatness along with several other criterions. And impact on your sport and other sportsmen in your sport or others Is certainly a criterion for greatness. How many kids on playgrounds who grew up to be professional basketball players wanted to be like Mike? If we go by skill Mayweather might be one of rhe most fundamentally sound boxers in history. There are posters on this board who think he's the greatest. That's why greatness is more than skill but skill is part of it
I agree that greatness is more than skill. Mayweather was probably more skilled than Ali, but Ali clearly had the more impressive career. That is why Ali is greater in my opinion. Duran was more skilled than both and had a more impressive career than both. That is why I consider Duran both greater and better than both. Although Ali's career is very close to Duran's. So he is very close in terms of greatness.
I guess it all depends on how highly you rank his 60's competition. I don't think it was anything special. It was alright but there were no killers there. (Liston was old) I get your point about Ali being out for so long, so if you want that to form the basis of your argument, I can go along with that. But it's impossible to know, other than to assume his best years were taken away. It might also mean his 70's run would have been a lot different. We just don't know.
I don't dismiss No Mas at all. I also don't buy into the excuse that Duran didn't have enough time to train. Duran always blew up between fights. There was never going to be a time when he was ready. I see No Mas as a situation where Duran just lost his cool. His was always a hot-headed, fiery character. He blew it. But he wasn't being outclassed and he certainly wasn't afraid of Leonard or getting beat up. He wasn't way behind on the scorecards. But No Mas is on Duran, I agree. He had some bad lows, but some amazing highs. Some of the guys he did lose to were the elite of the elite. (Not Kirkland Laing or Pat Lawlor, but hey... as said, he had some low lows)
I don't think he's Superman and I don't think he retires undefeated because Rocky Marciano who genuinely liked Ali told Belinda, Ali's wife at the time, he would never voluntarily walk away from boxing because he had the "bug". I understand not wanting to include a boxer's impact on his sport when determining greatness but Ali's impact on other sportsmen and the broader culture was enormous. Anyway something to ponder 56-5 11-0 in rematches 8-3 against other members of the International Boxing Hall Of Fame Beat four Gold Medalists.
I get that. I actually rate impact highly when determining greatness. Ali was in the right place at the right time as far as that goes. (Social and political climate of the 60's coupled with his personality were a perfect fit) I also feel that in this situation, Duran gets dismissed precisely because he wasn't as popular as Ali, and not a heavyweight. Heavyweights are always glorified, despite historically not being a particularly deep division. No chance a lightweight, no matter how good, is going to get as much press and coverage. Nor will his wins carry the same weight, historically speaking, unless you're a hardcore fan. Let's not forget that he was a national hero in Panama, and made it huge in the States despite not being a heavyweight nor American. There has probably never been a more popular foreign fighter than Duran in the States. That was down to pure ability. He was voted as the fighter of the 70's. And records... again that's Ali's official record. Could easily be 54-7, 6-5 if as some think, he lost to Norton all 3 times. There are some other questionable wins on his record as well