What's more impressive

old because young fighters can be easily matched to win a belt

 

Generally oldest. But depends on who you beat and how legit the title win is.

 

Benetiz or Hopkins?

Patterson or Foreman?

Tough question, but I got youngest.

 

Tough call. I'd rather be the youngest, and retire before I was 30. Live off my clebberty and make a come back or two.
To Answer the acatual question. I think a lot depends on who you beat. I would say that as it stands Wilfred Benitez beating Antonio Cervantes is more impresive than Bernard Hopkins beating Jean Pascal.

 

oldest

no one expected Foreman or Hopkins to win a title at their age, young guys can be matched up against bums to win titles at an early age to create hype around themselves

 

And when I say young, I mean 17 and 18 years old, not 21

 

i wanna be, i wanna be like mike

 

Oldest because its much more reliant on mental skills because you will usually be athletically outmatched

 

All depends on who you fight.

I mean, Canelo beat Matt Hatton for a 154lb title. Impressed?

 

Oldest, knowing you can still go out and beat good competition aftr losing your speed and other physical gifts is more impressive imo

 

Super hard question

If they are a physically underdeveloped young fighter then it's more impressive

It pretty much dependent on the fighter and situation...


Mike Tyson winning at 19 years old - Impressive

Watching Foreman KO Moorer - F*cking amazing

It a question that can't really be answered. Lack of case studies to analyse and judge off.

 

Oldest, because there is the physical disadvantage of aging.

 

Yes but young = less expierance and possible lack of physical maturity.