In answer to the original post question, I'd say not categorically, no. But it was certainly one of them.
I think in a way the second fight showed how great Ray was in adjustment, and that helped Duran because Ray's legacy went up also with the second fight. But Ray was a better fighter after he learned to fight his fight. You don't fight Duran on the inside or within range. He is great and I never said he was not, but when he fought guys who kept him on the outside and fought their fight and landed and then used smarts to frustrate him and not let him get his rhythm, he could lose. But it took the elites to beat him, even at the higher weights. Which is why the excuses about him being washed up when he moved up I do not accept.
There is no way Ray was prime in June of 1980. The fact he sort of retired in 1982 makes it look like his prime, but Hearns became professional 8 or so months after Ray, and he was not prime in 1980 or 1981, so why would Ray be? Hearns prime is probably near the Duran fight in 1984, so how would Ray be prime in 1980?
Prime is not peak. Of course SRL had entered his "prime". Hearns peak was the Duran fight. Hearn's prime went at least all the way from Cuevas to Hill - roughly. When you can school a fighter like Hill it's fair to say you still had a bit of prime in there.
Seems a bit silly. Makes more sense to say that there was a point where experience can compensate for a prime.
Depends on the era, the stakes of the fight, & if you are a particular fan of the fighters. Schmeling v Louis 1 & 2 are examples. The Rock v Walcott 1; Patterson v Ingo 2; Clay v Liston 1, etc.
When you are still beating world class fighters included the highest regarded 175 on the planet you'd have to be pretty good to do it outside prime. I'd have no problem with someone saying it was his last prime fight. Sure he was well past his best but he was still way up on the tree.
True. My criteria would certainly include how dominant (or one-sided or clear) the win was. I certainly think Duran won the fight and quite clearly (many others have it a lot closer) but I think it was fairly "close and competitive". Of course, the irony is, when any fighter destroys or dominates a good or great fighter, it is often viewed as some sort of fluke or abberation, and then come all the excuses for the loser. So Duran benefits from having beating Leonard clearly but not so badly as to make Leonard seem any less than he'd looked previously. Yeah. That's probably where it falls down for me. I think Leonard probably did enough to be a top 10 welterweight of all time, but the "second best ever" rating he's given by many seems too high. .... Especially considering many of them make a big fuss saying he lost to this "natural lightweight".
Leonard was 24 years old, was 27-0 as a pro after an extensive and celebrated amateur career, had defeated a few good contenders on his way to the title and had defeated a decent champion in Benitez over 15 rounds to become champion. He was past the 'prospect' stage, and had served a reasonably solid apprenticeship as a contender fighting contenders, and was the lineal champion of the world. Yes, he may still have been improving but I'd certainly have to say he was a young champion in his prime.
There are physical primes and then there are career primes. So long as he is not in physical decline A great fighter can still record the same result by different routes past his best using his experience to make up for physical prime. For example, Ali beating Foreman in the 1960s possibly wouldn’t be any easier for him than it was in 1974 even though physically he did everything better in the 1960s. Experience goes a long ways to making a career prime look longer.
Maybe there are different ways people define it? To me Prime means these are your best years. Frazier to me was Prime from 68-71. But to me Frazier was at his peak mid 69-70, some might say 71. Tyson was prime from 86-90, and at his peak in 88-89 Just my $0.02
Yeah, Leonard making Duran look so ineffectual and then quitting in the rematch is used by many as reason to dismiss that fight. In general unexpected dominating performances (not saying New Orleans necessarily was one, but you could certainly make the case) don't get the love they should. It becomes a bit of circular logic to say that Duran's victory isn't that great since SRL can't be that great when he lost to Duran. Likewise it's also circular to say that Duran's win was great, because the guy he beat was good enough to beat the great Duran. So better if we take Duran out of the equation altogether in this case: Then Leonard is unbeaten at WW with conclusive (if hard fought) wins over Benitez and Hearns as well as dominating wins over contenders such as Prize and Green etc. That's a high quality resume but lacking a bit in quantity. So it's what you like really. And then there's how Leonard looks on film, which of course also has a subjective element to it, but it's hard to deny that he had great speed, especially with his hands, great reflexes, good power, very good stamina and durability, good/very good technique and a classic winner's mentality. A very complete package all in all. All in all, I think Leonard, if we take his fights with Duran out of the equation, looks like one of the very top WWs.
Yes, that's why I agree with JT. Whether one still is in his prime really is how effective he still is compared to his best self. In theory, that doesn't have to correspond to the fighters physical prime, but there are not many fighters I'd say still were in their prime still after they had declined physically to a significant extent. Perhaps Moore, but no one else I can come to think of. Not even Hopkins.
I think we are in agreement here then. It is “physical decline” that is the true cliff edge rather than actual “prime” itself. So long as a fighter is great already -and he’s not in an actual physical decline- it’s possible he can do what all great veterans did, extend a prime producing wins on paper that will match anything that came earlier. Like Hearns against Hill, Ali against Foreman. So on and so forth.
I would probably look further than just one win, since styles make fights. It's easier to use your experience against a certain type of opponent, often punchers when your legs, speed and stamina aren't the same. That's why Foreman probably suited a post prime Ali better than Frazier, and Tarver a post prime Hopkins better than Taylor (even though I also think Hopkins really had outgrown MW at that stage). Or why Duran also performed best against punchers (Moore, Barkley) past his prime. Prime version of them would have fared better in total against the opponents they faced past their prime, but against opponents that suited them well stylistically they could still pull out results that were closer to what their prime selves would have achieved.
