Jack Dempsey - 28 years old Joe Louis - 27.5 years old Rocky Marciano - 29.8 years old Sonny Liston - 28.3 years old Muhammad Ali - 29.3 years old Joe Frazier - 27.6 years old George Foreman - 29.2 years old Larry Holmes - 28.5 years old Ken Norton - 28.7 years old Mike Tyson - 29.9 years old Evander Holyfield - 31.1 years old Lennox Lewis - 30.3 years old Riddick Bowe - 29.7 years old Wlad Klitschko - 32 years old Vitali Klitschko - 31.3 years old Anthony Joshua - 34.6 years old (entire resume) 31.5 years old (just top 6) Deontay Wilder - 35 years old For the guys with longer resumes I was liberal on who I added at first to the list of people I was averaging then once they started to fight notable opponents I was more conservative. I didn't put any "paid losers" or "bums" on the list. For early fights I just put guys who had decent records but they had a negligible effect as there were so little of them. Oldest Opponents: Wilder Youngest Opponents: Joe Louis Best Resume: Louis hands down Ali second Worst Resume: Wilder and Bowe I seriously recommend you guys to go through and try this on your own because it really gives a realistic view on how good of fighters that each champ fought throughout their career. Joe Louis was fighting good quality opponents practically his entire career and it really is amazing to see. I knew he had a strong resume and was moved along relatively fast but this raises my opinion of him and rating. I thought Dempsey would have a weaker resume so that was surprising as well.
I don't think it's a fair calculation. Today's fighters, especially heavyweights, seem to be viable longer due to modern training and nutrition. Today's 35-year-old heavy is probably still viable and closer to peak than a guy of the same age in the 1930s or 50s or 70s, etc.
Lol it's fact. Undeniable fact. The truth. Logic. Undisprovable. If you have facts of your own that you would like to debate then I will be more than happy to.
Mr. Dagowop You did not explain exactly what this age comparison means, but I get impression you think there is a connection between youth and the quality of opposition. Certainly it is almost a cliché to list age as a way of putting down a fighter's opposition. The irony is that the very opposite is true. If an older fighter is in the ring with a champion, he is a dangerous fighter. Who was Jeffries' most dangerous championship opponent. The young guys Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Munroe? Or old Fitz? Who was Tunney's most dangerous championship opponent? Heeney? Or old Dempsey? What about Louis? Except for Conn, almost certainly the two oldest, Schmeling and Walcott. Charles oldest opponent was Walcott and we know where that went. Who thinks LaStarza and Don C were tougher than Walcott and Moore? The oldest guy Patterson defended against was Liston. And then there's Foreman and old Ali. And what about Vitali and old Lewis? The "he beat old men" is probably the single biggest fallacy common in boxing analysis. A young challenger is often someone who hasn't accomplished much and never will.
I'd say look at just their title fights. You arbitrarily left off some opponents by your own admission, so it's not "undeniable fact," it's selective. Who you left off or put on could skew it either way.
Is that Holyfield vs. Foreman and Holmes? Just shows how data can appear to show one thing when the truth is another -- both were more viable and deserving than a lot of younger guys. Povetkin as WBA regular champ had a couple of defenses against OLD men who were completely undeserving, to contrast. Wasn't it Mark Twain who said there are "lies, damned lies and statistics"???
Maybe I'm not understanding what your getting at, But, your saying Louis had the best competition "Hands Down". But on your own list that you created Ali defeated 4 fighters and Louis defeated none. Maybe I'm not understanding your point. And theirs been thousands of 3rd rate fighters over the years in their early twenties. Don't see any connection.
the average age SHOULD be in the 20s if you are facing cream of the crop, as with any cardio sport. these resumes stacked with late 30somethings are a sign of the stagnation in boxing recently- essentiall they are taking the mick from their supporters by fighting so many no hopers.
That's a lie. I said I left off the "bums" and "paid losers" the type of guys that fighters fight in their first 5-10 fights. They are meaningless.
Where on this list do I say that Ali defeated 4 fighters and Louis defeated none? I only referred to age of opponents on here not who they fought. I didn't add third rate fighters. I only added: -Prior to fighting a big name I added a few ( less than 5) decent fighters which records for example of 15-3. That was for the guys with longer resumes. Ex: Donnie Long on Tyson's resume. -After fighting a big name I only added guys who were top contenders/champions After they started stepping up in competition the expectations got higher. I DIDN'T put anyone of the lower class guys on the list if they would skew the data negatively. Regardless of who's list it was. The same standards I used for Bowe I used for Dempsey and Marciano.
I'll use Mike Tyson for example. Prior to winning the title: Long, Scaff, Jaco, Jameson, Ferguson, Zouski, Tillis, Green, Gross, Boyd, Frazier, Ribalta, Ratliff After: Everyone from Berbick onward. Let's say Tyson fought Scaff after winning the title for some odd reason. He would NOT have gone on the list. Again, this is used to give a picture of the average age that each champs opponents were throughout their career. Not just their title run.