Rocky Marciano has a very good case for #1...

I don't see what's so controversial with saying that Ali never was quite the same after the lay-off. Would you say that Dempsey was as sharp as ever in his fights with Tunney and Sharkey?

3,5 years of inactivity takes its toll on an athlete, there's just no way around that.

 

yeah i've heard people on this forum saying that 3 year break is a good thing for a fighter. some live in fantasy land.

 

"Marciano would easily beat FOTC Frazier after 3,5 years lay-off" "He would knock W. Klitscko's head off"

"Walcott would KO Frazier, Foreman and Shavers" "Charles would clear out an era consisting of Liston, Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, Terrell etc" "Ali was in his physical prime at 20 against Banks"

These are just some things you said to build up Marciano as invincible. To claim all this with dead certainity is just not serious.

 

You have finally convinced me that further debate with you is pointless.I have allready explained to you how I formulate my opinions of fighters .I explained that ESPN has no input in my thinking,but you choose to repeat your asinine statements about where peope get there opinions.For the record I beleive I am the only one on this site to venture in print stating that Ali's 3.5 years in exile were his prime years,I am unaware of any theory on this on ESPN.You are the only boxing fan, I won't use any other words,who states that Ali was in his prime from the start of his career to the Foreman fight.Your arguments are fatuous,illogical ,and unresearched drivel.ADIOS!

 

Does boxing history back you up?

Sugar Ray Leonard--off from May 11, 1984 (this fight came after a two year layoff) to April 6, 1987--Result: Without any warmup bouts Leonard defeats Marvelous Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title.
Comment--Leonard is actually close to 31, two years older than Ali, and with only 9 rounds of boxing in five years is able to take Hagler.

Eder Jofre--off from June 6, 1966 to August 27, 1969--Result: Went undefeated for the next 25 fights of his career until he retired, winning recognition as featherweight champion.
Comment--Also much older than Ali. No evidence harmed at all by layoff. Successful at higher weight class.

Ezzard Charles--off from March 31, 1943 to Feb 18, 1946--Result: Returns to be perhaps the greatest p4p fighter from 1946-1951, even over Robinson, winning 39 or 40 and reversing his one close loss to the larger Elmer Ray by knockout.
Comment: Actually performed better after layoff. Fair to point out was much younger than Ali, returning before his 25th birthday.

Gus Lesnevich--off from March 11, 1942 to Jan 11, 1946--Result: Returned with mixed results his first year. At 5' 9", a natural lightheavy, he ko'd lightheavy contender Joe Kahut in his first bout back and later that year ko'd Freddie Mills at London in a title defense. Lost to larger heavies Lee Oma and Bruce Woodcock by ko. In 1947 had his best year and was selected fighter of the year with four strong wins--ko of Billy Fox, ko of Melio Bettina, dec over Tami Mauriello, and ko of Mauriello.
Comment--31 in 1946, he also is older than Ali. No evidence the layoff hurt him.

Tony Zale--off from Feb 13, 1942 to Jan 7, 1946--Result: comes back to win 16 out of 17 between 1946 and 1948, including ko of Graziano in 1946. Loses to Graziano in oven fight in 1947, but handles him easily in third go in 1948 to regain his title. Then loses badly to Cerdan.
Comment--Much older than Ali, Zale is 33 in 1946. Nevertheless, there is little evidence he was much harmed by the layoff. When he lost, old age could be considered as much of a factor.

Billy Conn--off from Feb 13, 1942 to June 19, 1946--Result: Is ko'd by Louis who also laid off four years.
Comment--about same age as Ali, but also lost to Louis in 1941. The excuse is the layoff killed him off but not the older Louis. Did not have any more serious fights to judge one way or the other.

Conclusion--Claiming Ali lost it as a result of laying off and therefore dismissing his subsequent defeats is an excuse and not a persuasive one, as a glance at boxing history shows.

 

As impressed as I am by this summation there are some points to be made. SRL was never the same again. His victory over Hagler is tremendous, but so is Ali's over Foreman.

Most of the other guys you mention was inactive over WWII. Well, most of their opposition had been inactive during those years as well, and those that hadn't been were just starting out.

And wouldn't you say that Dempsey, Louis and SRR was harmed by their respective inactivities?

Furthermore, you only have to compare how Ali looked post-exile to pre-exile to see the difference. He was a bit heavier, slower and tired a bit quicker in his second career. It's there to be seen.

I don't think anyone truly believes a 66-67 version of Ali would be as stationary as he was in FOTC. It's a no-brainer really.

 

You neglected to mention that Hagler was fading too.Jofre much the same as ever? I think he had lost quite a bit really,a great fighter , reduced to a very good one.I think Lesnevich 's skills were eroding ,that's why he came for an easy one over Mills rather than fight,the likes of Lloyd Marshall,who had kod Mills.

 

1. Leonard never being the same again--He might not have been the same if he never laid off. He was moving into his thirties.

2. Louis, SRR, and Dempsey--Robinson was 33 when he launched his comeback. Would he actually have performed better from 1955 to 1958 if he had never laid off? Who knows? Louis was also getting long in the tooth when he returned. He still had enough left to handle Walcott in 1948 and Walcott might have been the best man he ever defeated.

Dempsey and Ali have something in common in that they ran into a better fighter coming back than they had ever fought. Some might argue Liston over Frazier, but I do not concur. Not the Liston of 1964, certainly. He had not fought out of the first round in three years. I think he no longer had the sharpness and stamina to give Ali a real good go. In contrast, Frazier was prime.

3. I don't think the opponents were inactive during WWII argument is on the whole accurate. Without looking it up, Bivins, Moore, Marshall, Ray, Mills, Fox, Mauriello, Bettina, and Graziano, the major opponents of the war years stars I mentioned, were active every year of the war. I guess it was a question of a wife and children to support, and relative age, and Graziano was tossed out of the army for striking an officer.

4. How Ali looked. He was older. He may have moved around quicker when younger, but he always came down off his toes after a few rounds. His opponents on the whole couldn't take advantage of it. Jones did though. And Chuvalo belabored him on the ropes. Frazier and Norton just had more to offer--firepower in Frazier's case, and size as well as skill in Norton's.

 

Hagler was active, though. Jofre was past 35 for many of these fights. What is the evidence that the layoff hurt him? Marshall was not in the yearly rankings at all in 1946. Mills was upset by a fading Marshall in 1948 but still got a rematch with Lesnevich. Lesnevich was never a super fighter, after all. Did he or did he not perform at the top of his game in 1947?

All these men were aging fighters. I am certain their skills were eroding as they do with all aging fighters. What is the evidence, though, that the layoffs actually accelerated the process? I don't think there is any.

 

Leonard did a good job of preparing. But Ali was younger and had actually had two warm-up fights, one of which went 15 rounds with the tough Bonavena. I assume Ali was preparing too. He had the same trainer Leonard later had.

Hagler may have seen better days, but he was still a formidable opponent and he had been active.

 

This guy sounds like an old school nuthugger to me..Apparently Tunney and Dempsey are better than say Lewis and Holmes?

 

haha your the funniest comedian i've heard in years. i tell you what i love your posts. entertainment is what i like.