Rather, which is less worse? (I guess.) Defeating a shot past-prime legend or an extremely inexperienced one? A fine example: Jimmy McLarnin defeating a completely shot 36-year old Benny Leonard? Or McLarnin defeating a VERY green Fidel LaBarba (1-0)? Thoughts?
hmmmm, in general i'd take pre-prime over post prime but it depends on the context, the fighter, how they develop, etc. a "green" hopkins is a MUCH better win for jones than a shot jones is for hopkins
No thoughts at all. It has to be on a case-by-case basis, there is no other answer. But, playing along a bit I will say that Roberto Duran's win over the pre-prime Ernesto Marcel was better than Duran's win over post-prime Carlos Palomino
Well he stopped Marcel. Brutal knockout that. Duran hit him so hard the referee felt it backwards in time and ended the contest before the fatality occurred.
Depends. If the post prime can win a big fight or two afterward I'd go with that one as it points to him having something left. Example. A win over Foreman in the 1990's means something.
Joe Louis' best performance in the ring might have been Max Bear, which happened before he meet Schmeling.
