All Time Great Fighters Who Never Lost in Their Prime...

Which fighters who you consider to have been all-time great never lost in their primes?

 

I guess prime is a tough word.

Was Holmes still in his prime when he fought Spinks? I'd argue he was on the other side, if only slightly.

We've all pointed out a bit of slippage in Mayweather, so considering he hasn't lost, does he already qualify?

 

This is the key to the question. Presumably, people have their own opinions about the questions you've asked, and the point is to find out what they think.

It sounds like you feel that Holmes qualifies?

 

first ballot hall of famer Marcellus Johnson

 

If you haven't been beaten in your prime, it's cause you didn't challenged yourself enough.

 

I don't think past his prime and on the decline are the same things, personally. I don't think the fact a fighter has slipped means he's past his prime.

 

Mike Stinks

 

Yeah, I think so - and on that note, I'd say Spinks does too.

 

It's a tough one for sure.

 

pacquiao never lost in his prime either. you know, that window between the second and third marquez fights. once he improved his skills but before he became more or less shot.

 

Continuing my practice of mentioning him at any opportunity - Ezzard Charles never lost a light heavyweight fight as a light heavyweight & only dropped one robbery against a heavyweight between moving to 175 and the 3rd Walcott fight (aka between the ages of 21 & 30).

 

in far more fights against vastly superior opposition to any of the guys mentioned in this thread, even Spinks

 

Greatest ever

 

Agreed, I was going to mention Pacquiao.

He was obviously very green when he lost as a flyweight, and clearly past prime when he lost to the great El Terrible.

 

Joe Calzaghe

MTF :nana:

 

*All Time Great Fighters*

 

Ali would be another.

 

Sweet Pea, unless oyu want to be technical and call the first Ramirez fight a "loss"... depends on how stringent the thread criteria are

 

Michael Spinks
Larry Holmes
Julio Cesar Chavez
Salvador Sanchez
Hector Camacho

Never seen the loss to Monroe, but I'd guess that Hagler was still improving as a fighter when that happened. Likewise for B-Hop still improving when he lost to RJJ

 

Marciano
Calzaghe
JJ Jeffries

I might throw in Joe Louis too, I think he lost to MS while Joe was not yet in his prime.

 

In that case... Bernard Hopkins.

 

Nah,that's splitting hairs to the nth degree.

When Louis lost to Marciano, he was way past his best, and Marciano was so much better than the scrubs that Hopkins was losing to as to make it moot. Louis had also had a harder career and didn't have....supplements and Golden Toy to fall back on. When Louis lost to Schmelling, he was 22 years of age. That was definitely pre-prime. When Charles/Marciano did him, he was 36 and had a hard active career behind him.

Hopkins lost in his prime.

 

Who did Hopkins lose to in his prime? Jones, Taylor or both?

 

Taylor maybe? Hops' prime is a horror to try and pin down, mainly because the racist old bastard is STILL fighting and still beating supposed elite guys.

MTF

 

It is tough for sure. Still, by the time he got to Taylor he had been clearly past his middleweight peak for a couple of fights. I remember him looking mighty faded vs. Eastman.

 

Precisely. If he can retain a title at age 47, then a decision loss to the totally awesome Jermaine Taylor 11 years ago is well within his prime.

 

Not quite 11 years. And no, I don't think it is. There's never been a 40 year old fighter in his prime. He had clearly lost a step at that point.

 

Ali eeked out guys like Norton, Young & Shavers when he damn near shot. Hopkins is pretty much shot, in my book.

 

I'd say, off the top of my head...

Roy Jones
Sonny Liston
Joe Frazier
Ezzard Charles
Marvin Hagler
Jim Jeffries
Jack Dempsey
Floyd Mayweather
Julio Cesar Chavez
Bernard Hopkins
Michael Spinks
Larry Holmes
Muhammad Ali
Salvador Sanchez
Pancho Villa
Aaron Pryor
Rocky Marciano

Pernell Whitaker should be on the list, as CDogg says, but doesn't technically qualify. That's rubbish, of course. Kostya Tszyu is perhaps an arguable case? I agree with Irish that Joe Louis qualifies. He was probably close to his peak when Schmeling upset him, but not quite there. He improved as a fighter.

It is a little tricky in terms of weight, this topic. Hatton was at the height of his career when he lost to Mayweather, but we all know he wasn't at his peak specifically, because that wasn't his weightclass --- so does that count as a prime loss or not? Same with De La Hoya --- I considered 140 his best weight, so does that mean he never lost in his prime --- even though he lost to Mosley in or around the height of his career? And again with Holyfield never losing at Cruiser, but being at his HW best when Bowe beat him.

In the end, I took the view that these guys lost during their prime, even if it wasn't strictly their best weight.

 

Or maybe he'd given up fighting the Keith Holmes and Andrew Councils and Trinidads of this world, and a big, raw-boned country boy like Taylor was too much for him.


If he can win and retain titles in his late 40's, then the Taylor fight is prime enough.

It's not like he had the most active of schedules against the hardest of men.