Printable View
I want to put together a list of the greatest old champs. In order, of course. We have quite a few fighters that are timeless and find new ways to win. These guys show guts and whit when they possibly didn't have the reflexes anymore.
Archie Moore
B-Hop
Big George Foreman
Holyfield
RJJ
Tommy Hearns, maybe? (he won the vacant IBO cruiserweight at 41 yrs old)
You guys got any others?
Larry Holmes he should of won the world title at 45.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
Carl Thompson
Dennis Andries
Matt Skelton
Were all still winning past the 40 mark.
Infact wasn't Carl Thompson 40 when he beat David Haye ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
JCC wasn't too bad past 40 he beat Willy Wise in the rematch, and beat good fighters like Frankie Randall, Ivan Robinson.
I can't include fighters Like RJJ, Holyfield etc. In truth just because they fought past 40 they pretty much were embaressments of their former selves.
When speaking of Great fighters past 40 I only think of names like Hopkins, Foreman, Moore, etc......Fighters that were among the elite regardless of age
I almost put JCC in there.. but Frankie randall was 43 when they fought.. Ivan Robinson was a complete bum by then, and Willy Wise? well that's the one I actually give him credit for beating past 40yrs.
What is your list, then.. top to bottom?
In no particular orderQuote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
George Foreman
Bernard Hopkins
Archie Moore
Willie Pep
Larry Holmes
Bob Fitzsimmons (Though I have never seen him fight I know he was LHW champ at 40 still)
It is a bit of a warped list:
It sort of goes
1: The Ol Mongoose, Ageless Archie Moore.......
The rest......
Which see's Hopkins as a clear #2, then Foreman, Fitzsimmons and Ray Robinson fighting it our for third place.
The rest is really quite weak, I would say the likes of Eder Jofre with a couple of decent wins gets there, Holmes too, and as mentioned maybe even Holyfield, pads out a top 10.
The criteria for Pep's opponent selection at 40, consisted of: Having a pulse...... And for some, I still think they might have failed that test!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
The truth was post Lulu Perez in 1954, no one knew if Pep was on the level, or being controlled by outside forces, and that really hurt Will 'o
The Wisp, later in his career, not least because he was not allowed to fight in New York City.
After having 200 bouts and still being able to get in the ring and fight past 40 shows somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidThe criteria for Pep's opponent selection at 40, consisted of: Having a pulse...... And for some, I still think they might have failed that test!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
The truth was post Lulu Perez in 1954, no one knew if Pep was on the level, or being controlled by outside forces, and that really hurt Will 'o
The Wisp, later in his career, not least because he was not allowed to fight in New York City.
Sadly for Willie it showed he had blown his fortune, and needed the money....Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahnAfter having 200 bouts and still being able to get in the ring and fight past 40 shows somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidThe criteria for Pep's opponent selection at 40, consisted of: Having a pulse...... And for some, I still think they might have failed that test!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
The truth was post Lulu Perez in 1954, no one knew if Pep was on the level, or being controlled by outside forces, and that really hurt Will 'o
The Wisp, later in his career, not least because he was not allowed to fight in New York City.
Agreed after all those bouts he should have been living well....Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidSadly for Willie it showed he had blown his fortune, and needed the money....Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahnAfter having 200 bouts and still being able to get in the ring and fight past 40 shows somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Can you imagine fighters today with that many bouts....Top level fighters
Too right; some (naive) people say, today, a Lil Floyd could of beaten a Ray Robinson....Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahnAgreed after all those bouts he should have been living well....Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidSadly for Willie it showed he had blown his fortune, and needed the money....Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Can you imagine fighters today with that many bouts....Top level fighters
But as you suggest, let us level the playing field, and ask who sees a Floyd Mayweather Jr beating Ray Robinson, after Mayweather has 201 pro fights in his legs ala Sugar Ray?
I think he could've beaten SRR. I just don't think he would've & those are 2 very different things. SRR was unbelievable at MW, & I remember this guy Mick who runs my gym saying that SRR at MW was 25% of what he was at WW.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidToo right; some (naive) people say, today, a Lil Floyd could of beaten a Ray Robinson....Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahnAgreed after all those bouts he should have been living well....Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Can you imagine fighters today with that many bouts....Top level fighters
But as you suggest, let us level the playing field, and ask who sees a Floyd Mayweather Jr beating Ray Robinson, after Mayweather has 201 pro fights in his legs ala Sugar Ray?
The fact that Pep & SRR, in some people's eyes the 2 best of all time, had to fight on so long was a true shame. I don't consider either man great in their 40s, the only fighters I think get that are
Archie Moore
Bernard Hopkins
George Foreman
I don't think you can give it to guys who were great still being able to beat weaker opposition like Holyfield, Holmes, SRR. Don't know enough about Fitzsimmons to judge
There was IMO only one great fighter at the age of 40+ and his name was Moore, Archie Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Hopkins has shown himself a clear second.
Foreman is vying for third place, and personally I agree with you, he is.
But Robinson is floating around Foreman as he did beat a couple of contenders aged 40+, hell Holmes is up their purely on the strength of the Mercer win and McCall performance and Fitzy for beating Gardner and by Newspaper decision, O'Brien. But all this shows, is that outside Moore and to a point Hopkins, how weak a full top ten list is.....
I pretty much go with the three mentionedQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidThere was IMO only one great fighter at the age of 40+ and his name was Moore, Archie Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Hopkins has shown himself a clear second.
Foreman is vying for third place, and personally I agree with you, he is.
But Robinson is floating around Foreman as he did beat a couple of contenders aged 40+, hell Holmes is up their purely on the strength of the Mercer win and McCall performance and Fitzy for beating Gardner and by Newspaper decision, O'Brien. But all this shows, is that outside Moore and to a point Hopkins, how weak a full top ten list is.....
Moore
Hopkins
Foreman
as legit fighters who were/are dangerous past 40 for anyone. The rest get credit for being competitive with younger fighters no for their net worth as fighters
Shane Mosely is getting close to this club imo and Antonio Tarver deserves a mention along with Glen Johnson of course, both winning titles at 40 I believe.
I'm not that clued up on Archie Moore so I may be wrong here but isn't a lot of the reason he's considered so far ahead of everyone else in some part down to nostalgia?
I mean against the elite he got knocked out, Ali, Patterson, Marciano all ko'd him whilst Hopkins has not only been highly competitive with the current elite at plus 40 years of age but he's beaten and completely schooled some of them.
In an absolute sense you'd have to think that a 44 year old B Hop would have too much for a 44 year old Archie.
It should also be noted of course that Archie was able to do what is apparently impossible and that is come down in weight sometimes dropping 20 or 30 lbs and winning against top opposition like Yvonne Durell, another catchweight fight I do believe :)
Johnson is a good choice forgot all about him...He was only 35 when he was champ thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Against Durelle; Moore had to boil down to 175 and yet despite being floored four times (three times in the first) still managed as a 40+ title holder, to defend his crown, winning a rematch in three one sided rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
For what it was worth; no one could ever beat Moore at 175 from 1956 when Moore turned 40 officially (some believe it was as early as 1951, that Moore turned 40), until Moore retired as undefeated Light Heavyweight World Champion.
Duran was how old when he beat Barkley? :-\
37 i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
well that'd be close enough don't you think? lol especially when it was 5 divisions above from where he startedQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB37 i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Yeah, why not :confused::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoraleswell that'd be close enough don't you think? lol especially when it was 5 divisions above from where he startedQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB37 i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
We might as well include 37 year olds in a thread about great 40+ fighter. He's a perfect example of a guy who should've known to quit in his 30s, if not after the SRL defeat, then after he got KO'd by Pat Lawlor.
I also wouldn't count Tarver & Johnson, as both have yet to do anything whilst actually being IN their 40s.
I actually hold Hopkins acheivements since turning 40 on a similar level to Moore's, I think the biggest difference is we have clearer idea of how he's faded since his prime at the start of the decade (anyone who says this is prime Hopkins is an idiot)
yea cause winning a world title at a weight, 5 divisions above your natural weight proves you were shot at 30, especially by doing it against the guy who had just knocked out Thomas Hearns in 3 rounds in his previous time out.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinYeah, why not :confused::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoraleswell that'd be close enough don't you think? lol especially when it was 5 divisions above from where he startedQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB
We might as well include 37 year olds in a thread about great 40+ fighter. He's a perfect example of a guy who should've known to quit in his 30s, if not after the SRL defeat, then after he got KO'd by Pat Lawlor.
I also wouldn't count Tarver & Johnson, as both have yet to do anything whilst actually being IN their 40s.
I actually hold Hopkins acheivements since turning 40 on a similar level to Moore's, I think the biggest difference is we have clearer idea of how he's faded since his prime at the start of the decade (anyone who says this is prime Hopkins is an idiot)
IMO though Hopkins holds the torch as the best fighter in his 40's just seeing how he continues to take on the best and W L or D he never is completely outclassed
either
LMAO, I would've thought mentioning Lawlor would've made you realize that I meant the 3rd fight. If you think getting beaten by an average MW in Lawlor wasn't the hint for him to retire than you're blinded by Duran-love. The Barkley fight was great, but it was not a dominant win, I've watched that fight & at different times thought both guys won it. Duran did nothing of any note post-Barkley other than fight some bums & lose to Vinny Paz (also 5 divisions above where he started) which was a travesty as he would've destroyed that fool in his day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyea cause winning a world title at a weight, 5 divisions above your natural weight proves you were shot at 30, especially by doing it against the guy who had just knocked out Thomas Hearns in 3 rounds in his previous time out.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinYeah, why not :confused::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
We might as well include 37 year olds in a thread about great 40+ fighter. He's a perfect example of a guy who should've known to quit in his 30s, if not after the SRL defeat, then after he got KO'd by Pat Lawlor.
I also wouldn't count Tarver & Johnson, as both have yet to do anything whilst actually being IN their 40s.
I actually hold Hopkins acheivements since turning 40 on a similar level to Moore's, I think the biggest difference is we have clearer idea of how he's faded since his prime at the start of the decade (anyone who says this is prime Hopkins is an idiot)
IMO though Hopkins holds the torch as the best fighter in his 40's just seeing how he continues to take on the best and W L or D he never is completely outclassed
either
I thought he couldn't continue against Pat Lawlor, because of a shoulder injury ? by the way i also thought Iran Barkley won, but because of the cirumstances surronding that fight size wise and age wise, i have no problem with Roberto Duran winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinLMAO, I would've thought mentioning Lawlor would've made you realize that I meant the 3rd fight. If you think getting KO'd by an average MW in Lawlor wasn't the hint for him to retire than you're blinded by Duran-love. The Barkley fight was great, but it was not a dominant win, I've watched that fight & at different times thought both guys won it. Duran did nothing of any note post-Barkley other than fight some bums & lose to Vinny Paz (also 5 divisions above where he started) which was a travesty as he would've destroyed that fool in his day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyea cause winning a world title at a weight, 5 divisions above your natural weight proves you were shot at 30, especially by doing it against the guy who had just knocked out Thomas Hearns in 3 rounds in his previous time out.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
IMO though Hopkins holds the torch as the best fighter in his 40's just seeing how he continues to take on the best and W L or D he never is completely outclassed
either
You know what, I'll admit you might be right, I remember a chubby looking Duran getting KO'd by somebody not of his level, but it might have been someone else. I just remember he lost to Lawlor after SRL & put 2+2 together. Any ideas who it was?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI thought he couldn't continue against Pat Lawlor, because of a shoulder injury ? by the way i also thought Iran Barkley won, but because of the cirumstances surronding that fight size wise and age wise, i have no problem with Roberto Duran winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinLMAO, I would've thought mentioning Lawlor would've made you realize that I meant the 3rd fight. If you think getting KO'd by an average MW in Lawlor wasn't the hint for him to retire than you're blinded by Duran-love. The Barkley fight was great, but it was not a dominant win, I've watched that fight & at different times thought both guys won it. Duran did nothing of any note post-Barkley other than fight some bums & lose to Vinny Paz (also 5 divisions above where he started) which was a travesty as he would've destroyed that fool in his day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Duran never really had a big win past 40, although he did weed out a lot of fighters for the middle weight division.
I don't remember the Lawlor fight and I am a pretty big Duran fan. He did get outboxed by Kirkland Liang, which was a little embarrassing. But he had some more than just redeeming moments after his campaign below WW.
Duran had the Davey Moore fight after SRL 2, he beat Barkley, and he almost beat Hagler in case any of you forgot. I (and the judges) had him ahead after 12 rounds... unfortunately they had to fight 15 rounds and with the 13th round a swing round, plus Duran losing the last 2 rounds clearly from no fuel left in the tank. It was really a razor thin decision and a tactical fight. Reminded me of JMMarquez and Barrera in a lot of ways. Two very seasoned/game fighters in the twilight of their careers dishing out every different punch and trick in the book!
Check that fight out if you ever get a chance.
Bernard Hopkins IMO is by far the best over 40 fighter.
Against who?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBLarry Holmes he should of won the world title at 45.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
Some believe Holmes deserved the McCall decision. Personally, I thought it was close, but Oliver sneaked it by having a late rounds rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by porkyparaAgainst who?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBLarry Holmes he should of won the world title at 45.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds
WOW I totaly forgot about that fight.
I dont know about that one ICB.Legend no doubt but Chavez was hanging on by the skin of his teeth.Names alone were Randall and Robinson then & shot to pieces, many moons past good.Fact he was rematching nice guy Wise said it really.Always burned me that it took 9,10 years to go against Randall again after the 2nd fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Hate to correct you but those three JCC beat in his over 40 world tour were just shot fighters by the time JCC beat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Not nostalgia. The fact that Moore was 45 or 48 when he gave up the title says a shit load as to his ability.
Current? maybe "Hands of Stone" or "Macho Camacho" could still step into the ring with the "Hitman".....
Somehow I feel that the last statement completely closed this thread. But yeah, hitman needs another shot old guy to beat up on, me thinks.
HillII;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyFolds