Do you think it's Moore, Hopkins, Foreman or someone else? for moore, if you say his bday is in 1916, this would include all fights post-patterson. his resume is not filled with world-beaters even though moore still has the light heavy title. he had his classic with durelle and was 26-2-2 past 40 but those 26 wins were vs limited competition. at the same time it's still very impressive. hopkins is currently 6-3-1 past his 40th. he was still middleweight champ in his 40s before the losses to taylor and then won the light heavy title at 41. you can argue that he should be undefeated in all these fights which is impressive and he's arguably fought his best opposition past 40. with that said, the title fights vs taylor, calzaghe, tarver and his disputed draw vs pascal can be criticized. all of those champs are very weak from a historical standpoint. foreman regained the heavyweight title at 45, 20 yrs and 1 week after he lost it. i think this is one of the most remarkable accomplishments in sports history. foreman was officially 17-3 past 40 but that comes with some bad decisions for him and against him in that stretch. he performed well vs holyfield in that loss and was outboxed by morrison before defeating moorer. george has some decent wins past 40 but i feel his ko vs moorer would have put him on this list by itself. as of right now, i'm going to give the edge to hopkins for being the best over 40 fighter ever. he's not always fun to watch but you have to respect how good he is. also, hopkins has no kos past 40. he's having to gut it out for 12 rounds each time in the ring at his advanced age. thoughts?
Archie Moore, Bernard Hopkins. Surprisingly, Glen Johnson might deserve a mention if he keeps up his recent form. Not the greatest, but an exception to the rule with his pressuring style. A win over Froch would be big for him at this stage.
you are very comic. foreman is the best old fighter HANDS DOWN.FOREMAN IN HIS 40S WOULD KICK THE ASS OF OLD HOLYFIELD,OLD TYSON, OLD LISTON,OLD ALI, OLD HOLMES,OLD LOUIS,OLD JOHNSON ALL THEM IN THEIR LATE 30S. OLD FOREMAN WAS COMPETENT AGAINST THE BEST VERSION OF HOLYFIELD, 30 YEARS OLD TYSON COULD NOT FINISH THE FIGHT EVEN AGAINST A PAST PRIME EVANDER. THE SECOND IS ARCHIE MOORE. FOREMAN WAS RETIRED DURING 10 YEARS AND HE WAS THE CHAMP AGAIN WITH MORE OF 40 YEARS OLD.
i thought most estimates put him as 39 at the oldest against ali, after which he didn't do terribly much
He might have been 40 when he beat Patterson. We don't know. And nor did he. He might have been 30 like he claimed.
Hopkins or Moore but Oldyfield deserves a shout, deserving a decision over Valuev at 46 for the WBA title I think Vitali could go down as a great great 40+ fighter if he wants to keep going, maybe Wlad could too
I'd agree with this. We should rather use examples of boxers whose true ages we do know. There's some controversy over Archie Moore's age but it's generally assumed that he was atleast 40 after the Marciano fight. If he was born in 1913, as is sometimes claimed, then it's him no question.
This is part of the mythicization of Liston that people like Nick Tosches hang their hats on. The preponderance of record (both prison and newspaper)state that he was early 30's when he beat Patterson. Sure, he had an "old looking" face, but so do lots of athletes, actors and politicians of the mid-20th century.