WHEN Were Their Peaks?

[HomicideHenry]

Generally everybody tries to pin point a time when fighters were at their absoloute best. While not everyone agrees with the assumptions/opinions of others all of the time, I want to pose a question, and hope everyone has an opinion.

Ken Norton arguably defeated Ali in two of their three encounters, between 1971 and 1977, but Norton was never the same following his fight with Larry Holmes in 1978. So when exactly was Ken Norton at his absoloute best?

For me, its not as simple as saying "When he beat Ali in 1971", because of Norton's long staying power as a heavyweight contender. For me, and I might get criticized, the best Norton was the one who literally took apart the previously undefeated Duane Bobick inside of one round. You can knock Bobick now, considering he never quite recovered from the loss, but he had no excuses. He was actually the favorite in the fight, and had an extensive amateur career, and was undefeated as a pro and beat guys like Wepner with relative ease.

I know some will say that is too late in the game for Norton to have been at his best, but the way I see it, it wasnt too long after he lost controversially to Ali in their third fight and it was before Norton won over Jimmy Young. To me it fits perfectly.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Those fights with Ali occurred between '73 & '76, not '71-'77, Henry.

Getting on point, though, I would argue Norton's prime settled in between 1972-1975. In this timeframe, Norton went 11-2, looked terrific against the top ten-ranked Henry Clark, avenged his defeat to Jose Luis Garcia in unforgettably brutal fashion, lost clearly on just one occasion (that to a prime George Foreman), beat Muhammad Ali at least once, quite arguably twice, & took out Jerry Quarry & Boone Kirkman without raising a sweat.

Prior to 1972, I still look at some of the fights & feel I'm watching a greenhorn whose best years lay ahead. Around the time he fought Ali in '76, he was showing mild signs of sliding. Holmes' damaged shoulder in their fight is largely negated by the fact that Norton was past-it at that point, but merely, like Walcott against Marciano before him, found some old form which disguised his faltering abilities.

A lot more subjectivity in discussing just when a fighter's peak was than meets the eye, though.

[HomicideHenry]

True, but what I'm saying is, can you really pin point one particular fight in a fighters career and label it as their peak performance?

[Goodnight, Irene]

True, but what I'm saying is, can you really pin point one particular fight in a fighters career and label it as their peak performance?

Some men yes, others no. I know that's pretty open-ended, but I think it tells the tale. There is a stand-out performance while a man is in his general peak period (Bowe against Holyfield in '92, for instance), whereas others have general prime period which is littered with great performances, but no clear, career-defining effort.

[Ambling Alp]

With Norton, I don't think he had one fight that was clearly better than the rest. You could argue for the first Ali fight, the Quarry fight, the Young fight, or the Holmes fight. (He was also pretty impressive in blowing Bobick out in the first round.)
I would say he was at his best from 1972/1973-1978. He didn't have a gradual decline like most fighters. The Holmes fight took a lot out of him and sped up his decline.

Bowe's best fight was the first fight against Holyfield. However, he had several fights against lesser fighters that were almost as impressive. He also performed very well in the 2nd Holyfield fight even though he lost.

[My2Sense]

Most people regarded Norton at his peak in the stretch of fights just before his controversial loss to Ali - vs. Quarry, Garcia, and Stander. I would concur that that was his absolute, utmost peak. I don't consider a fighter's physical age or the length into his career as being any determinant of a fighter's peak. You can have 70-80 fights and just be reaching your peak (like, say, Kid Gavilan or Freddie Steele) or be washed up after 20-30 fights (like Fernando Vargas or Meldrick Taylor).

As for Norton's decline, he may have slipped just slightly around the time he fought Holmes and Young, but he definitely skyrocketed downhill after being flattened by Shavers. If not for that fight, he might have hung around the top of the division for a few years more (despite his advanced age) but he took way too many punches on his way to being stopped in that fight.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree that you can't just say that all fighters are in their prime at the same age or are washed up after the same amount of fights.

However, obviously age will catch up to you sooner or later. How many fighters are better when they are are 40 than when they were 30?

A lot of hard fights will catch up too you eventually as well.

Some fighters are washed up before they are that old. Maybe they don't want to train hard anymore, or have some major injuries. Others were in too many "ring wars".

What bugs me is when people try to say that a favorite fighter of theirs was past his prime when he really wasn't. Sometimes their primes conveniently end right before their first loss. (ie Tyson)

You have to judge it on a case by case basis, and of course there are some gray areas; but overall, the past his prime excuse is used far too often.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's worth noting also that many more fights between a prime & post-prime opponent are too easily written off. In many instances, the actual fight between the two has plenty of relevance to a prime-to-prime hypothetical, but is dismissed because Fighter X was, to whatever degree, beyond his peak.

[funso banjo baby]

Liston's prime.... around the two Cleveland Williams fights.

[My2Sense]

It's worth noting also that many more fights between a prime & post-prime opponent are too easily written off. In many instances, the actual fight between the two has plenty of relevance to a prime-to-prime hypothetical, but is dismissed because Fighter X was, to whatever degree, beyond his peak.

Agreed.

Not only that, but the more decisively the post-prime fighter gets beat, people just assume he must be farther past his prime (disregarding how much past his prime he actually is) rather than give the other fighter credit for beating him so decisively.

[Ambling Alp]

These are a coupe of interesting points that My2 Sense, Goodnight Irene and myself (and I'm sure some others) seem to be on the same page about:

1. Fighter A might be slightly past his prime, but is beaten easily by Fighter B. It stands to reason that Fighter B would have beaten Fighter A even if Fighter A would have been in his prime.

2. Sometimes when a guy loses decisively, it's not because he was past his prime but because the other guy was just that much better. You really have to look at their fight, and how each fighter performed in other fights.

There would be less off the wall statements if more people understood these points.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Some examples where the waters are considerably mirkier, though, are bouts like De La Hoya-Chavez I & Lewis-Holyfield I, where the losing men are more than just a little past their peak, but are beaten with shocking ease, & the winning fighters, like the men they bested, go on to greatness.

Personally, I see a prime-to-prime De La Hoya-Chavez (Jr. Welter) & Lewis-Holyfield bout as very close calls. I lean, only slightly, toward Chavez & Holyfield.

[harrygreb]

very good points. so its always best to watch a fighter and see if his best attributes are showing signs of not being so great anymore before deciding he's over the hill