Holyfield/tyson/frazier who is the greatest?

read the thread title and stop trolling.

 

better skills he most certainly did. but the clash of styles leads me to belive foreman would beat him 10 out of 10.

he did fare much better against ali, I feel he always had ali's number and if they fought 10 times in their primes, they'd probably take 5 victories each.

foreman also did well against norton. unfortunately frazier and foreman never got it on :huh

 

depends how you define prime. I'm sure every boxer has one great perfomance they never eclipse.

Prime years for me is like saying "this is x's era" he clearly wasn't as good in 99 as he was in 90. that is clear, but he was still considered the best heavyweight out there. he wasn't a peak holy but he was in his prime years. If you follow me?

I'm saying as a heavy, holy's prime years where during his championship era of 90-99.

 

this is basically wordplay now, but that's what I'd define peak as.

as I said when I say prime I'm basically going over the championship era. perhaps it's a poor choice of w2ord, but I can't think of a better one that is as concise.

I certainly don't view holy as shot in the 2nd lewis fight. Not at his peak neither.

 

again it's about wordplay isn't it.

as for the thread, I've decided, holy>frazier>tyson.

what holyfield did in the 00's was nothing special at all and I wished he'd have retired earlier, but still he picked up a belt and fought competitively with a giant. his losses to byrd and toney are excuseable because of his age. his loss to donald was shocking and shouldn't happen no matter how past it he is.

 

lol that's the point. I agree with you :good. It's wordplay because of my choice of words combined with your choice of definition.

 

perhaps so. I usually use prime the same when describing a person. when describing an era or a period of time i think that's where we got confused also.

but let's just settle on the phrase "holy was past his best by the time he fought lewis"