Absolute prime is not the same as best he looked on film

I always say peak /prime Hagler - his destruction of Sibson, but that's just mo.

 

Yeah. It's also difficult to pinpoint a peak performance for Ali, because some of his best scalps also have medical issues in his first career. Is it suspicious that so many of them claimed such medical issues? Yes. But Williams had been verifiably shot. Terrell, at the very least, we have pictures of in the hospital after the fight getting eye treatment. Most people accept Patterson's claim to have had an injured back. Ditto the injured shoulder for Liston, and the weirdness of fight #2. I don't think they were all lying.

To be fair as well: Many of these injuries Ali played a role in causing. But it's weird to see so many. I don't think most fantasy fights would predict Ali to beat opponents like Louis or Dempsey by back, shoulder, or eyeball injury. They might predict something like Liston II against Carnera if they're feeling trolly that day.

If we're looking for peak performances against youngish, healthy, ranked guys, maybe we should look in the stretch between Williams and Patterson? Maybe Chuvalo, Cooper, or Mildenberger?

Ali might've been better afterwards, but the measuring sticks aren't.

 

Terrell's eye injury was because of Ali. He came into the bout 100%.

 

I agree. But would you pick Ali to inflict that injury every time if the two had a trilogy? I wouldn't. It was unusual. As far as I know, Ali didn't eyepoke any other contenders into defeat.

 

No, but I don't see the relevance of your question. It's not like Terrell would've won without the eye poke.

 

We should create the official boxing dictionary.

 

The relevance would be that the thread is asking about peak performances. It takes quality of opposition into account. It's asking us to take into account more than just where a fighter looked best on film. It's easier to look incredible on film against a half blind guy than an opponent with two working eyes.

Ali may have been better in Terrell than he was in Cooper II, Chuvalo, or Mildenberger, but it would be harder for us to tell.

 

In many ways, I agree with this. But then because I agree so much I end up disagreeing with he initial premise.

For example, for me Duran looks his best against SRL. Not De Jesus, because as dominant as he was in one, the level at which he's fighting is so much more superior in the other it is very hard to rate the performance as better.

Another example would be Ali against Williams, often cited as his best, but he impresses me much much more against Terrell.

Over the years I've realised every fighter looks like Pernell with Power in atleast one fight in their career, but that rarely showcases them at their best. So to see them at their best you have to appreciate the qualitatice factors that can outshine the visuals.

 

I dunno, I always believed that Richard Hall fight was his peak, he looked fast at 168lbs, but there was this extra explosiveness that I noticed in that fight, it’s hard to describe, but it was there

 

Hmmm I wander what that could’ve been…..

 

He went to the same butcher as Canelo lol

 

Perhaps. He looked awfully explosive against Tate too. Hall wasn't overly good. His peak would make an interesting debate.

 

Tony Thornton at 168

 

One of the most complete well-rounded skillsets, with a ferocious attitude to boot.

Respect Monzon as a champion but never felt he was as capable as THAT Hagler.

 

Hagler was a beast, at his very best, a frightening force of nature!