BoxRec

Drunkenpiper36,

I am not discrediting Lewis for beating past prime Tyson and Holyfield because it was his defining accomplishment, but he beat the prime version of Tyson and Holyfield, I would consider rate Lewis over Tyson and Holyfield. I credit Tyson win over past prime fighters because either prime heavyweight fighters who were former or future fought in the same era as Tyson would lose before they even go on the top of the division. You discredit Tyson for beating not so prime fighters because they were not good enough to beat him. It was just your opinion and I respect that. Also, you can respect my opinion. We can agree or disagree on that matter.

For Riddick Bowe, beating Holyfield two times out of their three fights was a good accomplishment, but he doesn't rise above Tyson and Lewis because his prime was short. Out of the big 4 in that heavyweight era, Bowe was the fourth best behind Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis, which were not in particular order. Why? Because Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis accomplished more and made more impact in their primes than Bowe ever was. Tyson and Lewis are both members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame while we wait for Holyfield in a few years to get induct, Bowe did not get inducted. Named 3 fighters who got inducted this year Hall of Fame and their last fights was the same year as Bowe. De La Hoya, Trinidad and Calzaghe accomplished more than Bowe, but it was just another subject to tell.

When it comes to all-time heavyweight rankings, the first top two in my mind was Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis. The rest are hard for me to tell because those guys accomplished in the ring and our opinions would be different.

scorpio83 wrote:Drunkenpiper36,

I am not discrediting Lewis for beating past prime Tyson and Holyfield because it was his defining accomplishment, but he beat the prime version of Tyson and Holyfield, I would consider rate Lewis over Tyson and Holyfield. I credit Tyson win over past prime fighters because either prime heavyweight fighters who were former or future fought in the same era as Tyson would lose before they even go on the top of the division. You discredit Tyson for beating not so prime fighters because they were not good enough to beat him. It was just your opinion and I respect that. Also, you can respect my opinion. We can agree or disagree on that matter.

For Riddick Bowe, beating Holyfield two times out of their three fights was a good accomplishment, but he doesn't rise above Tyson and Lewis because his prime was short. Out of the big 4 in that heavyweight era, Bowe was the fourth best behind Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis, which were not in particular order. Why? Because Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis accomplished more and made more impact in their primes than Bowe ever was. Tyson and Lewis are both members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame while we wait for Holyfield in a few years to get induct, Bowe did not get inducted. Named 3 fighters who got inducted this year Hall of Fame and their last fights was the same year as Bowe. De La Hoya, Trinidad and Calzaghe accomplished more than Bowe, but it was just another subject to tell.

When it comes to all-time heavyweight rankings, the first top two in my mind was Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis. The rest are hard for me to tell because those guys accomplished in the ring and our opinions would be different.

I can't make much sense of this, but thanks for posting.

You're welcome and I appreciate it.

Getting back to the original question:

People mean different things when they refer to a fighter's prime. Some people are really just talking about a fighter's best fights. Almost inevitably, this means that losses don't count (because they could not have been at thier best if losses count; at least guys that they like anyway) and therefore someone else is not going to get full credit for beat that fighter regardless of when the fight took place.

Age of course robs a fighter's prime. There are very rare cases of an Archie Moore, but almost every fighter declines significantly at a certain point in age. Almost every fighter is much better at 30 than 35, and much better at 35 than 40.

Wear and tear is a also a huge factor. If a fighter is in a large amount of brutal fights he will not last as long. He can easily bounce back from a brutal fight in his 20s, but he can't keep doing it forever. Fighters from years ago (say the 1920s and 1930s) fought a lot more and were not as protected early in their career. Fighters have been more and more protected over the years and most don't take that much punishment in their 20s.

When rating a fighter's career, it should be more than just rating him at his very best. However, it is important to take into consideration how close his opponents were really was to their primes when thier fights took place. For example, a fighter should get much more credit for beating Ray Robinson in his 20s than beating him in when he was in his 40s and had well over 100 fights.