Behold your false god, Roberto Duran

Chuvalo talks about how Ali wasn't the same in plain terms. He also fought Ali again in 1972. To think Ali dropped significantly from 71 to 72, but not that most was of speed and stamina loss were from for his 4 year layoff is mind-boggling. NOT that I suggest anyone has made this claim. But fighters aren't just going by testimony... there are going by first hand accounts.

Chuvalo basically said, "Ali couldn't punch for as long, and was force to take rests more often. He would fight more in spurts, he wasn't quite as fast and didn't have the movement he used to. He could dance, but only spurts. His speed and stamina had declined very noticeably."

To think Frazier wouldn't have benefited from any of that, if true...

If someone wants to make a case they could say Ali punched harder. But hardly compensates from the rest, and it's actually more speculative than what we can see from our eyes of Ali's real digressions. If Ali puncher harder, it might be due to sitting down on his punches more because he was more flat-footed.

 

It was. Ali displays some of his best punching ever in the early rounds in FOTC, but at 215 there's no reason to believe that he was harder puncher than when at 212 and his athletic ability still intact. He did sit down on his punches more, though, probably ecause he didn't have the same confidence in his legs and movement anymore. I think he tried to KO Joe, which his 6 round prediction also would suggest.

 

Exactly, he was even being gutsy by sitting down on left hooks. He sits down on shots trying to KO Frazier in Manilla too. In FOTC the strategy backfired in a huge way.

I think his hands might not have been as bad either.

 

Ali looked terrific against Ellis and Foreman and in the rematches with Quarry, Norton and Frazier. Those fights were together with FOTC his best after the lay-off. When Ali got into shape during those years he was still a fantastic fighter.

 

Your thread was ill-thought out trash with no substance or self-respect in sight.

What kind of responses were you expecting.

 

:deal

 

Do you have a secret p4p list, where you have put Leonard above Duran.

 

:roflHark the voice of everlasting youth:smoke

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you're 37 overweight & a bit shopworn & some young debt collecting gorrila comes to your door & blocks out the sun light & then informs you that he's the man that knocked out the man that knocked you out & that you also beat his best mate up 4 years earlier when you were still a tad handy & then proceeds to batter you all over the street........what do you think your chances are of success:huh

 

my point is you cannot rate Duran after lightweight really or give him too much credit. He was part of the fab 4 and that is to his credit, but he lost to them all, but does his lightweight reign equal top 5 ATG ever and no way does it.

 

I think his victory over Barkley is one of the greatest wins of the last 50 years...and this is a win you barely acknowledge, so that would explain our difference in opinion.

 

It was not a great win in my mind. I remember the night he fought him so well I even remember they played a replay of Hearns/Roldan before the fight card started at Madison Square Garden. I knew Duran would win. Take my word on that.

Why would his win over an average middleweight who most top middleweights beat at the time, Nunn, Kalambay,Benn be that great, and then when Duran lost to Benitez and Hearns and Leonard years before that when Duran was champ those fights are ignored. You cannot pick and choose the wins against mediocre and say that makes him great, and ignore the losses to the greats. The only thing Barkley ever did was win an upset over Hearns, but he did not have a great career. I knew Duran would beat Barkley the instant I heard the fight was signed. Barkley was an ESPN fighter who was crude and an inside fighter and not great defense, and Duran was great on the inside, and in this fight he didn't have a guy who was fast in front of him. Great win? No way. Predictable. And then Hearns beats Virgil Hill in 1991 and Virgil was undefeated and had 10 title defenses at light heavyweight. Hearns win there is underrated, and Duran's against Barkley overrated.

Had Duran beaten Virgil Hill that would have been a great great win. But he never would have beaten a fast guy who moved who was undefeated. He beat Barkley. A guy who lost to Sims,Kalambay,Nunn and was stopped in one round by Benn all at middleweight.