Overall career ratings versus At their very best

[hawaiianpunch]

This would make a huge difference on all time ratings:
A good example would be at their best Meldrick Taylor almost always beats Chavez (without Richard Steele of course) but for overall greatness Taylor is nowhere near Chavez.
Some all time heavyweight ranking don't have Tyson in their top 10, that is absolutely ridiculous! At his best he is #2 at worst! Very possibly #1. I also think Lennox Lewis would be a top 5 or so heavy. Larry Holmes should also get more credit.

[kick asner]

This would make a huge difference on all time ratings:
A good example would be at their best Meldrick Taylor almost always beats Chavez (without Richard Steele of course) but for overall greatness Taylor is nowhere near Chavez.
Some all time heavyweight ranking don't have Tyson in their top 10, that is absolutely ridiculous! At his best he is #2 at worst! Very possibly #1. I also think Lennox Lewis would be a top 5 or so heavy. Larry Holmes should also get more credit.

If I understand you correctly it sounds like you are saying a fighter should be considered an all time great based on what he did in his prime. Most people in this forum take that into account highly provided a fighters prime was over several years. I you take a fighter like Iran Barkley he had some big wins in a short span, most notible a knockout win over Thomas Hearns. But he did not do enough before or after that short span to be considered an all time great. Taylor was great in his prime but suffered a severe drop off.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

decagon, i disagree chavez wasnt in his prime. chavez was still in his prime vs taylor, i believe chavez was only 29??