Best in prime P4P!

Which fighters in you're opinion were the most impressive in their relative primes? Can you guys think of any fighter who's prime years in boxing would succeed in any era? Sugar Ray Robinson won 41 straight fights before losing to Jake La Motta and then went on to win 86 fights drawing 2 fights before losing to Randy Turpin so it could be argued his prime was between the 2 defeats which was very impressive. I never saw Robinson fight but I was lucky enough to see Roy Jones Jnr fight in his prime and I dont think there was any fighter better skilled, more athletic, or quicker then Roy but what do you guys think?

Was Ali's prime before the lay off just too good for anyone? or does Marciano's undefeated reign as competitor and champion deserve a shout. For me I am looking more at the fighters abilities rather then who they fought. The prime years of a fighter are always noted as the best years of a fighters career like the legendary "prime Tyson". My personal list would consist of....

Roy Jones
Tyson
Marciano
Chavez snr
Ali

Always thought that Monzon was the epitome of invincibility. Was unbeaten for a decade anyway, but in his championship career, apart from his final fight with Valdes, he never looked in the slightest danger of losing at any point. Totally dominant fighter.

1922 (? can't remember exact year of his great run) Greb or 1938 Armstrong must have good shouts.

Beat me to it Captain, watching Monzon fight is a strange experience as it doesn't feel like you're watching one of the greatest fighters of all time but he went about things so efficiently that I cannot envisage anyone ever being able to beat him.

Think if Monzon was American he'd be a higher up the chain...

Am obviously not basing this on much footage but recently read a biography of light heavyweight Jimmy Bivins and the write ups and record suggest during his peak years between 1942 and 1945 he was truly staggering. His record certainly seems to support this showing as it does wins over the likes of Charles, Lesevnich, Marshall, Sheppard, Maxim and Moore amongst others against only one loss against Pastor (avenged)

All of which makes my decision to exclude him from our Hall of Fame even more dumb.

The problem is, OneTwo, that all too often people get a little too creative when trying to redefine what the word 'prime' actually means. We all know that in July 1989 Mike Tyson was very much in his, but that came to a very sudden end seven months later in Tokyo, a night in which his prime had suddenly been left behind.

Ask a Chavez fanatic the same question, and they'll tell you that in 1992 when he soundly beat Camacho and Haugen, that Chavez was the most lethal and primed fighter of all time - but that suddenly in 1993, when he got incredibly lucky to score a 'draw' with Whitaker, he was all of a sudden more washed up than a bottle on the beach and was suffering with more ailments than Dot Cotton.

I think Ali's first reign as Heavyweight champion is a decent place to start, though. Unrivalled speed for a Heavyweight, and utterly, utterly dominant in a way that few fighters have been. Arguello, in a ten year stretch, only dropped one split decision in a non-title match as he blitzed his way through Featherweight, Super-Featherweight and Lightweight, and even in (eventual) defeat on the title stage he went down with honour in a magnificent effort against Pryor.

It's a touchy subject and we could be here all day, first off defining what we consider 'prime' to mean, and secondly putting forward all the worthy candidates.

You may listen to me next time Jeff.

Is a shame I am not easily getting over Ghosty, which was only compounded by reading the book. Got too hung up on his record post 1946 but reading the book apparently he was badly assaulted whilst in the army and his form suffered as a consequence of this. Can only be happy he made it to the second ballot, can assure you I will be doing my damndest to ensure the mistake is not made second time round.

88Chris05 wrote:The problem is, OneTwo, that all too often people get a little too creative when trying to redefine what the word 'prime' actually means. We all know that in July 1989 Mike Tyson was very much in his, but that came to a very sudden end seven months later in Tokyo, a night in which his prime had suddenly been left behind.

Ask a Chavez fanatic the same question, and they'll tell you that in 1992 when he soundly beat Camacho and Haugen, that Chavez was the most lethal and primed fighter of all time - but that suddenly in 1993, when he got incredibly lucky to score a 'draw' with Whitaker, he was all of a sudden more washed up than a bottle on the beach and was suffering with more ailments than Dot Cotton.

I think Ali's first reign as Heavyweight champion is a decent place to start, though. Unrivalled speed for a Heavyweight, and utterly, utterly dominant in a way that few fighters have been. Arguello, in a ten year stretch, only dropped one split decision in a non-title match as he blitzed his way through Featherweight, Super-Featherweight and Lightweight, and even in (eventual) defeat on the title stage he went down with honour in a magnificent effort against Pryor.

It's a touchy subject and we could be here all day, first off defining what we consider 'prime' to mean, and secondly putting forward all the worthy candidates.

I did consider all the factors you mentioned Chris and it is a bit of a touchy subject but I think most fans and critics alike have a general idea of a particular fighters best years where they were the most impressive to watch. I think Tyson was still in his prime when he lost to Douglas but outside factors contributed to his downfall. I think Alexis Arguello is a good shout as he was a very complete fighter,and I would also put Holmes inj there also.

Poor old Ernesto Marcel always gets forgotten despite being the man who beat Arguello albeit a reasonably young Alexis.

My proudest moment was managing to convince a couple of posters to change their votes on Bivins, speaks volumes for the strength of the light heavyweight division that he rarely makes the top ten.

Not easy to top those already mentioned but one from slightly left field whom I would throw into the mix would be Packey McFarland.

Often regarded as a serious rival to Langford and Burley as being among the greatest of uncrowned champions, McFarland lost only once in more than 100 official fights and counted among his scalps the great Freddie Welsh, among others. Couple or three strikes against McFarland would be that he never did contest a world title, that he operated during the ' newspaper decision ' era, and that he was a lightwelter before the division existed. Nonetheless, his resumé boasts many of the best available men of the day, and few would deny that he was a genuinely elite level fighter.

Perhaps he wouldn't be a serious rival to the Jofres, Monzons and Robinsons, but I shouldn't have thought he'd be too far distant when we consider dominance over a prolonged period.

Could possibly even consider Gene Tunney who like McFarland only lost once in a series he dominated, aside from which beat everyone there was to beat with the possible exception of Young Stribling whom I really need to read up on, any help would be much appreciated.

Wow you guys are really going back some. I think Curry was almost too good before he met the ruggamufin.

Prime Mike Tyson before Gus died.

Daniel Mendoza was almost unbeatable too from what i've read

Recently the obvious choice would be Mayweather who aside from the first Castillo fight hasn't looked remotely close to losing a fight

Wilfredo Gomez, at 122 lb, may just have been the most 'dominant' champion the sport has ever seen. It's not just the pure statistics of his title tenure there, it's the way he achieved them. Quality challengers were not just knocked out or stopped, they were utterly marmalised. His forays up to the higher weights, of course, were a little more patchy, but I dare say Monzon could have found himself stretched on the canvas had he had a crack at Foster, too. At Super-Bantamweight, Gomez really was something else.

Foster owned that division but what a fight between him and Monzon.

Scottrf wrote:Prime Mike Tyson before Gus died.

Thank Heavens tysonking isn't here to pick up that particular ball and run with it.

Bob Foster as well of course was utterly dominant at light heavyweight barely losing a round beating some very respectable fighters along the way, also do find it hard to imagine any former middleweight standing up to his punching power, Hagler and LaMotta included.

I would certainly think Joe Louis is worth a mention. In between his loss to Schmelling and his much debated win over Conn he looked near unbeateable and racked up close to 20 knockouts in almost as many fights. Possibly the only blip being floored by Galento but in that 5 or 6 year stretch he truly dominated.

Though he didn't dominate in the way we all seem to think of first, Whitaker must be right up there. Cleaned out the Lightweights, added straps at 140 lb, 147 lb and 154 lb, dealt with a whole manner of styles in emphatic fasion, and was never decisively beaten until he was thirty-five and returning from a year-long drug suspension. Just a shame that justice wasn't served first time out against Ramirez and then again when he faced Chavez.

Naseem Hamed?

Hard to know how good whittaker was because he used to run like a thief...

May be controversial but prime Don Curry for me was a rare beast...

Mills Lane, Mark Breland, Duke mckenzie, Mccallum and notable others all rated him the best fighter they had either faced or the best fighter they had refereed or seen...

Just thought I'd give him a mention..

Have to go for Robbo in his prime....

Thought about Hamed but cant work out when he lost the plot,before or after leaving Ingle.

Yep TRUSS i mentioned Curry he was really impressive was'nt he.

I missed out on this one the other day but will pitch in with the criminally overlooked Ricardo Lopez.

Scottrf wrote:Prime Mike Tyson before Gus died.

would that be Gus Tomato?

Ricard Lopez is a good shout..he is criminally overlooked..

probably bacause he's so small...

Big man's game..

I would say Lloyd Honeyghan in his prime did pretty well - dominated the domestic scene with commenwealth, British and European before taking the world by storm

okay

Ezzard Charles in his best years just tore a hole in the light heavyweight division when it was arguably at it's finest, and from the looks of things he was pretty multi dimensional. Beat plenty of totally different styles and in his best years, only dropped one very debateable split to Elmer Ray. He avenged it by KO. Beat Moore thrice along with other all time greats of the era and beat Bivins several times in revenge.

I also think the Barrera from the first Morales fight looked formidable. Sure the judges disagree but what do they know?
Woulda loved to see that Barrera against Gomez at super bantam.