If a fighter's "Greatness" is judged by his "prime", how long does it have to be?

I agree here look at Holyfield for example...lets talk in theory he takes the WBO strap and continues to unfiy (unlikely but for example lets say) then Holyfield would be arguably on of the greatest fighter of all time for a feat that happend 10-15 years after his prime. It is about over all careers not the time people call "prime" the word is so hard to define these days with guys like Hopkins still being able to dominate at later stages of their careers.

 

Greatness is pointless -fullstop- Bestness is what is important and that can indeed be judged by one appropiate fight -fullstop-

 

Calzaghe is a tricky one, he is actually better than his prime -fullstop-

 

Like Calzaghe hamburgering Lacy.

 

I think it's entirely subjective from fighter to fighter. For instance, I don't believe Riddick Bowe was a "great" fighter, because looking at his resume, even though he was a unified champ, he did not accomplish much outside of beating Holyfield the first time to claim the title. Tyson, on the other hand, while his reign as champion and window of "greatness" was relatively short, he was so dominant in that era, that he can only be considered great.

 

You agree though, right -fullstop- His peak performance did come way after his prime -fullstop-