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

I tend to agree that Louis never looked as good vs Baer. But Baer was scared and had to be pushed out of his dressing room and did not dispaly and jab / or offense and was right there to be hit. I think Bear landed very little. He alllowed a young Joe Louis to find his rhythm and shine.

 

Similarly, are there fighters whose best relative performances come in losses or even being stopped by an undoubtably elite fighter e.g. Meldrick Vs Chavez?

 

Many feel Holy’s absolute peak was against Bowe in their first bout.

 

I think most of your examples are generally accepted. At least here.

It's Ali pre and posy exile that isn't. Actually that is the only case I know where someone came off a long lay-off and many still claim he was just as good, or even better.

However, I think Ali himself does a good break-down of his older and younger self, both in the Hauser book and in a British interview from 1974. Especially in the Hauser book he also looks at the benefits that came with age. That's probably a valid break-down for most boxers.

 

It's perfectly logical to us but absolutely counter-intuitive that a fighter's best showing/version of themselves is in a loss.

The hard bit is objective analysis of their skillset demonstrated in the loss combined with appreciation of the eliteness of their victor that night.

It's weird - the best Duran beat Palomino, and Leonard in Montreal, but there's an appreciator of the sweet science in me that really gives him so much kudos for the effort against Hagler, irrespective of arguments of Hagler being somewhat nullified due to being starstruck/recognising and respecting Duran's skillset.

 

Again, hard to disagree but also the exact same fight that has me downgrade his chances in hypothetical match ups.

Evan Fields stood his ground and went mano-e-mano with the much bigger fighter and got left hook happy, fighting a stupid fight. I feel like all that he had to do was use his superior footwork, fight off the double and triple jab and pick his moments as Bowe was so damn hittable. At the same time, I do recognise that if he doesn't stand his ground and give Bowe something to think about, Bowe just walks him down until Evan is too tired to fight off the bigger man.

I think if Holyfield could fight it again, he would certainly mix it up a bit more. Don't get me started on Fan Man - if not for the intervention, I reckon Bowe would have absolutely dominated Holyfield down the stretch.

JT1 and everyone else talking about RJJ - one of my fave fighters but I'm mindful that it's quite obvious that he took something. Do we get on our soap box and dismiss performances of Evan, Toney, Roy, Pacman, Floyd and anyone else that it's fairly obvious, whether proven or not? Or do we take a Tour de France stance of everyone did it, so we accept the performances but just asterisk them so that we don't unfavourably compare them versus the older greats where PED usage was probably more unlikely?

 

I think Terrell. There's there's no good reason to believe his injuries weren't caused by Ali.

Or are we going to omit every win were the outclassed, badly beaten fighter ends up in hospital? Just because he claimed unverified fouls.

And we have Floyd and Chuvalo both saying Ali was better before. And his own word and Dundee's, for whatever that's worth.

 

Whilst I will admit that the competition was superior/stronger in the 70s, you'll struggle to convince me that you can take a fighter such as Ali out of the ring for 3 and a half years, have them under the pressure and stress of what Ali was going through and they come back better than the speed and reflex that he showed from Williams through to Folley.

Just cos he fought better competition doesn't mean that he was a better fighter and 100% doesn't mean that he was just as potent, or as some argue, an improved athletic specimen. Moreso, as per McGrain's thread, his relative performances were arguably as good/better in spurts, but his athletic prowess is demonstrably downgraded.

 

Well, if you think Terrell was lying about the eyepoke (intentional or otherwise), that would change things, yes.

 

Yeah, if you just take the losing fighters word for it a lot of results will probably be void. Holy-Tyson for starters.

 

I agree, but last time we looked this up, IIRC, there was a newspaper article stating that he'd been admitted to the hospital for an eye injury. And one or two other Ali opponents also complained of getting poked in the eye (perhaps due to the way he didn't fully close his fist with the older thumbed gloves), so it has some plausibility.

 

Fury came off a long layoff with far more abuse of his body than Ali, returned to boxing later than Ali and many would say that his best career performance is Wilder 2. One's prime is partly relative to the attributes of the opponent and to the setup of the fight (ring size, canvas density, strictness of the referee etc.).

 

I know. But punches can cause injuries. I never saw it specified that it was because something else.

 

Sure. But most of the time, punches don't do that to people's eyes. It would be a freak injury regardless, even if a punch caused it.