absolutely yes.
I think you can make a strong argument for it, then again, I think you can also make a legitimate argument against it with fighters like Bernard Hopkins and Archie Moore.
I'm not going to mention the great Archie Moore because with all due respect I haven't seen him fight. I've watched film on him but I haven't seen him in his true context, I think fight fans spend way to much time praising guys from the 1940's and 1950's that they never actually seen, there just looking at stats and going by hearsay.
Bernard Hopkins, however, is a fighter that I've been able to watch over the years and I think you could make the argument that he's the best older fighter based on his ability to beat younger talent and take calculated risks.
You can make the argument for Floyd Mayweather, Archie Moore, Roberto Duran, and even George Foreman , there have been a number of All-Time Greats that had great careers even when they were older in age.
There are several greats who were doing great during old age, i believe even the guy you use as your avatar, Joe Louis, was doing very good at age 37; he had many impressive wins but he was lacking ko's. Louis did good until at age 38 he fought a phenomena.
I said it before and ill say it again; we have allot more to see of Mayweather, maybe even a decade more. He may be old but he doesn't take too much punishment much like Charley Burley, and with his spending habits he will need to keep on fighting. At old age i think he has slowed down but he is being smart about it. He isn't fighting all up and coming fighters, like Ali did [and look how that took a toll on him].
You can argue that but it's a tough call. Bernard Hopkins is another one of the very few names that did well at the age of 37 and he's a good candidate for your question.
George Foreman
He retired in 1997 at the age of 48, with a final record of 76–5, including 68 knockouts.
having that KO percentage wow... what a great man...
Floyd having 0 loss = cherry picking / avoiding prime and great fighters. and retiring when needed and get back when the champion is old and.or the champion is an easy opponent..
and how about Julio Cesar Chavez won 107 (KO 86) + lost 6 (KO 4) + drawn 2 = 115
rounds boxed 634 KO% 74.78
No. Bernard Hopkins was better, at 37 to name one, and was taking tougher fights as well.
Archie Moore was a true hall of fame great at 42 + years. SRR, was a true great into his late 30's. both these guys ducked no one.
Yes, he dominated the sport for 17 years. It is not easy to compete that long at the top level.
He should start fighting the best before we can considered him the best...pac is the best, and he doesnt want to fight him...in my eyes and many other boxing fans, he aint the best because he doesnt want to fight the best...he keep on ducking the best...ali fought the best, robinson fought the best, leonard the best... floyd fought not the best...
Nah. greatest ducker of all time for sure he is.
Yes he is hes still undefeated and making everyone in his division look mediocre.
If not, who tops him?
No, that would be Archie Moore.
Talent wise maybe, but it terms of heart and courage.... HELL NO!!!
