Who is the greatest HW of the last 25 years?

Om yeah it does. Its the point in which your body is at its peak...And that happens for men from the ages of 27 to about 33. Its the point in which you body and mind is at its best. For women that age is 16 to 21. Lewis was a fighter that was better later but that was due to the different style of fighting, but had he started with Steward earlier he would have been even better at 29.

Age has every thing to do with prime that is what prime means dumbass

 

You two are arguing the same point.

hudson....yes 29 is right in the middle of your peak...YOUR PHYSICAL PEAK!

And Drexl....yes, you can DEFINATELY hit your peak past that. Fighters get better with age all the time....the biggest example is the one you mentioned, Hopkins, who most feel didnt hit his stride till about Echols fights...where he was 34-36....and dont feel it ended till about the Eastman fight...where he was 40.

Apples and oranges guys...

 

83-2008

Surely, Lewis cant be considered for this one. Lewis didnt make his pro debut until 89, due to an extended period in the Amateurs. Also Lewis didnt have a notable win until he beat Ruddock in 92, and wouldnt gain the true title until he beat Holy in 99. Plus he retired in 2003, which all total, leaves a 11 yr absence from the ring for Lewis during this 25 yr span.

This should be a toss up between Holyfield and Tyson, but I would pick Holyfield who went pro in 84 and was fighting for the HW championship by 1990. Also, one must take credence in the fact that Holyfield managed success against the past greats before him, plus many of his contemporaries, and even later champions like Rahman, and Ruiz, Holyfield also has been very active in that 25 yr span. Runner up, Tyson.

30yrs -Holmes
25yrs -Holy or Tyson
20yrs -Lewis

 

VERY GOOD POINT!!!!

Didnt even think of that one. I jumped right on that Holmes was too far back to be considered for the last 25....completely missed that in the 25 we are speaking, Lewis didnt burst onto the scene until MUCH later.

I still tho dont think you can make a legitimate arguement for Tyson over Holyfield. Accomplishments, H2H, resume, longevity, etc....all go to Holyfield. Tyson you can argue dominance...but as I mention in resume, it was against much lesser competition.

Great point about Lewis tho.

:good

 

Lewis

 

Lewis, I believe.

 

In boxing terms, NO IT DOESN'T. And this is a boxing forum, right? I was under that impression. :roll:

When someone talks about a "jab" here, do we mean some kind of sexual act? An intravenous injection perhaps?
Does Rabbit Punch mean hitting a cute bunny in the face?

"PRIME", in boxing terms, refers to the period when a fighter was at his best AS A BOXER. I cannot believe I have to explain this.
For ****s sake. :-(


Go tell anyone here that Vargas was prime vs Mayorga, and see what response you get.
Please.
Do it.

 

no one should have tyson above holyfield, lewis is a close second but i'd say holyfield lewis only beat the top dogs after they were long in tooth and had many many wars

 

Lennox.

Last 30 years, still Lennox.

 

You do realize with this mindset you can attack the other 3 fighters' resumes as well. Way to be objective! :good

 

So Tyson lost to Buster Douglas before Tysons prime, is that the point you're making?

Tyson, when had become the unified champ, the youngest champ, lost interest, got KO'd, and went to prison, had not yet reached his prime.

Is that what you are saying?

Apparently so.

Prime - in most cases means peak. When all factors combined - age, experience, training, motivation etc - combine, and have the athlete performing at their very best.

Regardless of their calendar age.


So anyway, if you want to stick to your ridiculous theory, Lewis was PAST-PRIME when he lost to Rahman, so it doesn't really count, right? right?

 

Well, GAtti and ward had a great trilogy, but it doesn't make them great.

Who didn't Holyfield fight?

Bruno
Morrison
Ruddock
Golota
Tony Tucker
Tony Tubbs
Bonecrusher Smith
Tua (Bit later on in his career, but still in the scene for a long time)
Oliver McCall


Shall I go on?

 

:huh

Ummm, all time....he is...better resume, better accomplishments, better H2H and was the better overall boxer....only thing you can argue is Tyson was more dominant and had better physical skills (speed, reflexes, power).

I would love to hear an arguement for Tyson being greater all time then Lennox...

(hate having to post on subjects like this...Tyson obviously is one of the best ever HWs...but just not on par with the likes of Lennox, Holyfield or Holmes...)

 

Tyson from the 80's was an unstoppable machine his head movement was some of the best in the HW division ever. When he still had that and a jab he would have beaten Lewis and Holyfield, but maybe not a primed Holmes