Hypothetical: Boxing legends all at their peak year

Listen, we were all raised with belief that these were all the greatest athletes and greatest boxers ever. Its hard to think of these guys any other way.Its very hard to compare boxers from different era's so I give you that.But if you go by size, speed, and skills, the old guys may not have been as good as we use to think. We all thought Foreman was huge right? .....Not by todays standards.

Marvin Hagler 1976-1985.

End of discussion.

THis^^^

In the words of Roger Mayweather "people don't know sh**t about boxing". In case you don't know there are fighters such as SRR, SRL, Willie Pepp,

Henry Armstrong, ROBERTO DURAN (my number 1 pick), Tommy Hearns, Julio Cesar Chavez, Pernell Whitaker, Roy Jones Jr, Carlos Monzon, Harry Greb, and Sammy Langford.

If we're going small, throw in Salvador Sanchez. Alexis Arguello was pretty good too

W. Klitschko fought in a very weak era. One of the weakest, for some reason heavyweights weren't worth a squat in the last ten years. Klitschko was slaughtered 3 times by journeyman fighters. (Purrity, Sanders, Brewster), all of those loses were when he was young and seasoned.

He doesn't have a real impressive signature win on his record. David Haye was probably the best fighter he ever beat and that was an awful performance for both of them. Haye will go down in history as a clown, not close to a great fighter at all

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Loo wrote:

Tyson is overrated. Not a good fighter when he faced skilled heavyweights who could neutralize his attack. In all of his high profile loses (Douglas, Holyfield twice, Lennox) he was beaten senseless in virtually every round.

None of those fights took place during Tyson's peak. All took place post-1988, when he had fired his trainer, stopped training seriously, and was drinking and drugging to excess on a nearly daily basis.

During Tyson's peak, he won almost every minute of every round.

Tyson was 23 when slaughtered by Douglas, he was 30 when he lost both times to Holyfield, he was old when he fought Lewis, but he is also a year younger than Lewis.

You lose.

Tyson struggled even prior to Douglas with a few 2nd tier fighters like Tony Tucker and Nino Ribalta. Tucker fought Tyson with a broken hand and still gave him lots of trouble. Tyson fans are usually full of excuses, you are no exception.

Loo wrote:

lol lol lol lol wrote:

None of those fights took place during Tyson's peak. All took place post-1988, when he had fired his trainer, stopped training seriously, and was drinking and drugging to excess on a nearly daily basis.

During Tyson's peak, he won almost every minute of every round.

Tyson was 23 when slaughtered by Douglas, he was 30 when he lost both times to Holyfield, he was old when he fought Lewis, but he is also a year younger than Lewis.

You lose.

One can be out of shape at 23. Tyson was. Not training will do that to you.

The question was "Hypothetical: Boxing legends all at their peak year"--for Tyson, that was 1988, not 1990, when he was both physically and psychologically utterly out of it.

Similarly, if one were to compare a "peak" Seb Coe to another runner, one would choose 1981, not 1982-3, when he was ill and running poorly, or 1990, when he was old AND ill.

Seriously. That is always the most used excuse for losing important fights. He wasn't in shape for the fight. Tyson had more signature loses in his career than signature wins. His greatest wins, Berbick, Bonecrusher and who else?Most of his really impressive fights were against nobodies. His fast knockouts of these lesser fighters created the myth of him being the greatest.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Loo wrote:

Tyson was 23 when slaughtered by Douglas, he was 30 when he lost both times to Holyfield, he was old when he fought Lewis, but he is also a year younger than Lewis.

You lose.

One can be out of shape at 23. Tyson was. Not training will do that to you.

The question was "Hypothetical: Boxing legends all at their peak year"--for Tyson, that was 1988, not 1990, when he was both physically and psychologically utterly out of it.

Similarly, if one were to compare a "peak" Seb Coe to another runner, one would choose 1981, not 1982-3, when he was ill and running poorly, or 1990, when he was old AND ill.

BillyJack wrote:

Seriously. That is always the most used excuse for losing important fights. He wasn't in shape for the fight.

Tyson was never properly prepared for a fight after firing Kevin Rooney in 1988.

Not just physically fit, but _trained as a boxer_. None of his trainers post-88 were versed in the Cus D'Amato system and the difference between how Tyson fought under Rooney and after Rooney was night/day.

For example, a fight that you cite as difficult for Tyson (in fact, a dominant performance) Vs. Ribalta (http://youtu.be/PDkFd7PQz80 ) Vs. a typical post-Rooney fight Vs. Francois Botha (http://youtu.be/fef2qWh0FS0 ).

What about Tyson Fury?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Either one of the Klitschko's would have little trouble beating the past heavyweights on points. Vitaly had Lewis dead on his feet until he was stopped by the doctor for a cut.

People hate them for their defensive boring boxing but a fit giant with those skills is nigh unbeatable.

Either one of the Klitschko's what?

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Loo wrote:

Tyson was 23 when slaughtered by Douglas, he was 30 when he lost both times to Holyfield, he was old when he fought Lewis, but he is also a year younger than Lewis.

You lose.

One can be out of shape at 23. Tyson was. Not training will do that to you.

The question was "Hypothetical: Boxing legends all at their peak year"--for Tyson, that was 1988, not 1990, when he was both physically and psychologically utterly out of it.

Similarly, if one were to compare a "peak" Seb Coe to another runner, one would choose 1981, not 1982-3, when he was ill and running poorly, or 1990, when he was old AND ill.

Fighters don't reach their "peak" at age 21, idiot. Especially heavyweights. Tyson actually reached his top level of skill and physical peak when most heavyweights do, around age 30, when he faced Holyfield, but was woefully outmatched by a more skilled fighter.

The fact is Tyson was exciting and a great knockout artist, but he was not a great fighter or close to it. Every bum fighter in the history of this sport has the exact same excuses you used for Tyson.

Roy Jones jr in his prime could have beaten anyone else in their prime, even heavyweightsm

ken Ya wrote:

Roy Jones jr in his prime could have beaten anyone else in their prime, even heavyweightsm

Roy was great but nope. Roy would not have been able to beat either a prime Hagler or Hearns at middleweight. Roy dominated when he was young because he never got hit and his weak chin was never exposed. Facing Hagler he would be under relentless pressure every second of every round, and would be unable to hurt Hagler, and Tommy Hearns was actually faster than Roy on the attack, and would have had no problem landing his devastating right hand.

Hagler and Hearns were the best two middleweights ever. Hearns didn't spend much time at that division because he got massacred by Hagler in their epic bout. But that was Tommy's best natural weight. His peak of speed and power.

Don't forget Yankee Sullivan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schDjyrd2wo