I wanted to make a post about this because of some of the things people have been talking about in these Ali/Liston and Hagler/Leonard fights, to gauge where people actually stand on fights won when one guy was "past prime". It seems like every significant victory in boxing history has to come with some asterisk that the victory came against a post prime fighter and thus either doesn't count or is significantly diminished in value. The Liston fight is one of the most famous examples I can think of - nowadays, the narrative is that Liston was washed and had no chance in a fight against young Ali while back then everyone seemed to think Liston would annihilate Ali easily. There is lots of legitimate circumstantial evidence to suggest that Liston wasn't at the peak of his powers, but that narrative only came about because he lost, and if he hadn't lost we would all call 1964 the latter stage of his prime rather than far past it. Just prior to this he had annihilated Floyd Patterson, a consensus (from what I gather) top 30 heavyweight, in utterly dominant fashion, and no one considers this past his prime despite the fact that basically all the same problems from the Ali fight were still happening - he was old and out of practice. So there comes this paradoxical problem of, if a fighter wins he is in his prime because he beat so and so, but if he lost it was because this reason and that reason and thus the win wasn't legitimate and he wasn't in his prime. How can we give credit to any great wins in the sport if the win inherently implies that the opponent wasn't in his prime, and thus the win was legitimate - barring some incredibly resurgence from the losing fighter like post-FOTC Ali or something along those lines? Worse still is when people call fighters shot or washed or terrible or something along those lines because of one loss to another ATG. I saw someone do this about Hagler after his loss against Leonard, which is frankly ridiculous because, for one, Leonard was far more out of practice than Hagler in the fight, and two, Hagler was still the reigning middleweight champion and showed no signs of some massive decline. Despite being an insult to the losing fighter, diminishing their skills seems to be just a move to push the agenda of calling a disliked fighter weak by delegitimizing their victories. So I want to turn it back to you guys about when this kind of thing is legitimate and when it's not; do you think that every great win is in some part because the other guy was bad, and that most fighters never really loses in their prime, or do you think it's only fair to use that criticism in very specific situations? I think that, in many cases, it's a scapegoat to downplay a fighter's successes for some agenda; likewise, I think that it is a sort of paradoxical argument because, upon losing a fight, we typically deem that fighter as "post prime" merely because of the loss, making it difficult to claim that any win comes against a prime fighter ever.
Also, if you don't like calling fighters washed, what fights do you think are unfairly deemed as inconsequentional because the loser was post prime - or what fights do you think are overplayed even though one guy was washed?
Hey Mate, good post idea. Had something similar in mind that I wanted to bring up but you basically had the general idea. I agree with what you said about how it seems a fighter is always deemed post prime whenever they lose a major fight in their career or in other cases some sort of accuse. This gets really annoying as a fight fan because it seems people are always trying to take something away from the victory rather than just appreciating the fight. The main thing to do when gauging whether or not a fight was lost simply because a fighter was "past it" vs just fans trying to excuse their fighters loss it to look at their resume and recognize a pattern. A good example of a fighter who could legitimately use the excuse of being "past their prime" is Ezzard Charles. Post 1951 he was coming off a brutal KO from Walcott, began loosing more often in general, and was fighting above his natural weight class. Another thing to take into consideration is that just because a fighter wins to another fighter past their best days doesn't mean it's not a significant win. Ezzard Charles may have not been in his "prime" but that doesn't take away from Harold Johnson or Nino Valdez's victory over him as Charles was still a still a significant contender who would go on to Challenge for the title in brutal fights even after the looses despite not being at the top of his game. Same thing for guys like Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard. Just because Hagler wasn't in his absolute peak, doesn't mean he still wasn't one of the best fighters in the world, one of the best middle weights to have ever lived, and the undisputed Middleweight Champion when Leonard beat him. Guys like Sonny Liston are often defended with the excuse of being "past prime" to keep their aura of mystique of invincibility. Yet as you mentioned if you read between the lines, they claim makes no sense when you consider he had cleaned out the division before hand and brutalized World Champion Floyd Patterson Twice in the first round (note that Patterson would remain a strong contender in the following years regardless). The main thing to keep in mind mate is to read between the lines and not just take excuses or explanations at face value and understand the pattern and context leading up to a fight and examining their victories and performances before hand to their loss.
Welcome to the forum. Will not get into the Liston-Ali thing again, except to say that's not quite what was said by most on that thread. I guess it all depends upon the reasoning and how honest someone's being with their interpretations. It's the nature of many fans of a sport to want to look at every aspect of something and also if you are interested in history too. I do not know if it's worse or not with fight fans than other sports. Many fights and fighters do come with that asterisk attached, and should. Define significant or great wins. That's all relative to the fighter is it not? The big name fighters and fights are the minority in the sport You mentioned Hagler-Leonard, many people do genuinely think he was showing signs of aging by the time they fought. It also was not the only factor in the fight and it would be wrong to claim it was. Do you dismiss that as unreasonable or not? Up to the individual how much weight they give it. With respect to Ali, many would point to the toll exile took on him. Is that a fair point to consider? Joe Louis against Marciano, Louis was well past his best and it's just sad to look back and watch him still fighting. It's not an unreasonable point to factor in when thinking about that fight. The end part of the wonderful Ezzard Charles career should not be held against his record should it? That's the nature of the sport unfortunately that fighters are often caught by an opponent when past their best. Which is why it's all the more special when you get those willing to fight the best when they can. Many fighters go on long past the point when they should have called it a day -is it unreasonable to recognise that? For example Lewis beating Tyson -it's not wrong to say Tyson was not at his prime when they fought is it? Is it possible to take that argument to silly lengths and apply it when it's not warranted of course, equally sometimes it's totally appropriate. I see you are mentioning excuses, agendas, delegitimising victories or careers -that can work both ways I guess and it's not what I saw most people doing on the Liston-Ali thread. Sometimes it might be about fans being ridiculous and overly protective of their favourites or sometimes it's fans honestly looking and factoring in all aspects of it. Both of which are probably ridiculous, especially if you are not a fan of something. Up to you, in a general sense, to weigh up the pros and cons of what's being said as well as your opinion of the person saying it. Sorry that was a long winded way of saying I guess it varies on the individual cases, the person making the argument and their rationale. I should have probably just said -sometimes it's legitimate, sometimes it is not. Welcome to the forum again.
Yeah, I definitely agree that it's really just a case by case basis even if my argument might not make it seem like that. Like Marciano's win over Louis is not even close to an ATG win or anything. I do think it's kind of uncalled for when the loser is still at a championship or at least great level like Donaire and Inoue or Hagler and Leonard or whatever though.
KOs the like of which Liston executed over Patterson, back to back, are stunning and do have that WOW factor. However, the window to assess Liston fully across both those fights was extremely limited. It’s a bit ironic that such fast and emphatic victories can instil a perception of invincibility when, in fact. the victor wasn’t properly tested for a sufficient number of rounds to properly gauge them in rounded terms. Personally, I’ve seen Liston look somewhat better in a similarly short space of time - vs Wayne Bethea. Faster, more mobile and more accurate. It is somewhat less common for fighters (at least the best of the best) to actually face each other when both are in their reasonably interpreted prime. It’s an each case by its own merits type of analysis - and definitely, the mere fact of a fighter losing shouldn’t signal and automatically default to that fighter no longer being in their prime - which is, of course, circular reasoning if relied on simply in its own right.
Welcome to the forum. My view in general is that we should : 1) Analyse how close to their prime a losing fighter was on a case-by-case basis; 2) Be careful not to always apply one extreme or another. i.e. a losing fighter doesn't have to be absolutely peak or completely shot. A win over a fighter in or close to their prime years, but not at their absolute peak, can still be a very significant win; and 3) There's nothing wrong with adopting perspective that is different to the original prevailing view, with the benefit of hindsight. As for the Ali vs Liston specific, depending on what source you reference, Liston was either approaching his 32nd birthday for their 1st fight and 33 for their 2nd fight, or older. He'd had less than 2-rounds of boxing in more than 2-years. I doubt it was an absolutely peak, best ever version of Liston that got into the ring with Ali. He was still almost certainly the best HW in the world that Ali could have fought, though, as well as the reigning world champion for their first fight, and so an Ali who had only just turned 22, deserves substantial credit for the victory. Sometimes adopting an extreme view is valid, but more often a balanced perspective is better, imo.
The very nature of the sport is comprised of the old champ giving way to the new hungry contender. Liston was past prime through age and inactivity,but he was still formidable and competitive in that fight. Hagler was a little in regression, Leonard spotted that in the Mugabi fight. How many times do we see two guys both bang in their prime?
To be fair to Louis vs Marciano on Rocky's part, Louis was still a top ten fighter and beating contenders. Louis was way past his best, but not sure I put it on the level of shot. Now Ali vs Holmes were Holmes was beating up on Ali for 11 rounds with Ali not fighting back at all almost, now that was shot, Louis was still giving Rocky problems for about 4 or 5 rounds.
