Sorry i meant to get back to this ages back. Tho Leonard beat Hagler after a long layoff he was an incredibly rare exception to the rule. Below was Futches comments on Leonard. Eddie Futch, who trained the last man to beat Hagler (Willie Monroe, 1976), says, yes, it is possible for Leonard to beat Hagler. “Leonard has a chance if he can go the distance. He knows how to fight Hagler, to box him, counter him and give him angles. He should not elect to punch it out with Hagler.” Duran gave Hagler trouble, Futch says, because Hagler overlooked his tremendous boxing skill. That is how Leonard must fight Hagler. “But those five years of inactivity,” Futch insists, “that will be the major factor. Things are always a little different when you finally get into the ring. He’ll wonder why the things that worked in the ring aren’t quite on the money in the ring now. Suddenly, you can’t quite get out of the way of all those little punches.” Futch agrees with almost everybody else that, “Five years ago, this had a chance to be a great fight. Leonard had a chance to outbox him, outspeed him. I don’t think that kind of speed exists today.” You are overstating the effect of the damage IMO that Ali would have received by fighting in the layoff because we saw it took years and more than 15 odd fights to appear. This included the brutal FOTC and bouts against monsters like Foreman and even more Joe Frazier. also bear in mind Ali really wasn't taking much punishment at all at his 60's best. He was also taking loads less punishment in sparring as his later willingness to be hit in sparring had not surfaced. Foreman is another incredibly rare case. The man is an absolute freak, like the great Archie Moore and Bernard Hopkins. Larry Holmes came back with barely any break and fought for many more years at a good level. A lot of it is genetics. Ali had these genetics as evidenced by his success deep into the 70's even at a lessened physical capacity. Shows how great Ali was that's for sure. But it took a different set of skills and intangibles to the set he had in the 60's, yes. The layoff and age had taken its toll but he was still great enough and durable enough to get by a fellow ATG. I'd add IMO that Frazier was closer to his prime in Ali II than Ali was. I completely disagree. Ali for mine was a different fighter in the 60's and was a better fighter in the 70's post FOTC. Tyson fans will rabidly argue that Tyson was far removed from his 80's self.
In 1971 Ali still had fights and performances like the 'Rumble' and 'Thrilla' a few years ahead of him while '96 Tyson was entering the last twelve months or so when he could remotely be considered a dangerous fighter to the elite at the time. A 1991 incarnation of Tyson may have been a better comparisson.
Very true,Bokaj. I like to think that we're not afraid to criticise him whenever it's due though - much as we love him.
It’s also humours that people make out like Ali had gloves chucked at him for the first time in three years for the Quarry-Bonavena fights. He was in shape had trained plenty and looked BAD they were his best comp or was it Old Liston crusher of B tier guys. it’s why he didn’t look good. He got work on the road he was in shape and at his best he grew after those fights and got better but he never outgrew not learning to put his right hand up or figure out club fighter Norton “jabbing with him”
