The best fighter ever at age ____

From about 23-33 it's going to be stacked since basically everybody had their prime sometime then.

 

Holmes could be considered in the 40's plus range. Probably goes something like this though:

Hopkins
Moore
Foreman
Holmes

 

20-23 Mike Tyson
26-30 Hagler

 

So Ray Robinson at 26-30 wasn't better than Hagler? Duran too was clearly better.

 

Duran was clearly better? How so?

 

Because p4p he's the better fighter. Montreal Duran was the man.

 

38 is not Duran. It's Moore or Mayweather, depending on criteria. Duran isn't in the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

thanks for taking all the easiest ones

Tyson at 21/22

good idea by the way :good

 

Vitali Klitschko was better in his early forties than Foreman and Holmes. They might have better singular wins than him, but they were taking loses and struggling for wins whereas Vitali walked through Adamek who I think was the number one contender, then beat fringe guys in Chisora and Charr with room to spare.

 

25 could go to Jones. He beat Toney and was a year removed from beating Hopkins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Good call. We'll have to look up every fighter and which age they did what in which year. :huh

Good, time consuming thread.

 

Depends on the years as a whole. How many fights did Vitlay have in his 40's? Holmes's won over Mercer and Foreman's win over Moorer trumps anything Vitlay did overall in his 40's, possibly.

 

:drink

 

Didn't Ray Robinson win the Welterweight title at 25? Didn't Leonard finish Hearns at 25?