Which boxer do you add a win to?

[joeandthebums]

What if the fight happens in 2015? How does it effect either's legacy?

It closes that particular chapter for both winner and loser. Yet it'll forever be exposed to arguments regarding Mayweather/Pacquiao decline and how it would of played out if happened earlier in time.

Would have loved to seen holyfield beat an undefeated tyson circa 89-90

Holyfield got huge credit for his victories over Tyson and if he had fought him 1991/92 it might of reduced the impact of his 1996 win since Douglas had only recently defeated Tyson.

Throw in Holyfield's defeats, semi-retirement and heart concerns to the narrative and his '96 win looks hard to topple.

Bowe and tyson throwing down circa 95-96, not sure who wins

Would definitely add to their legacy and give both a boost, yet like you said with Bowe, if either got in with Lewis at that point and beat him, even more credit.

With that said, I am starting to regret my choice.

Give me Ohba-Borkhorsor in late ‘72 instead. It would settle who was the best Fly' during the mini-era before Canto's arrival - with the winner's historical standing gaining a huge boost.

Have to admit seen only one of Borkhorsor and sure he lost it. Enjoyed Ohba-Hanagata II but otherwise haven't got much of an opinion on either.

Who would you favour to win between two?

wasn't there talk of a possible Tyson fight with George Foreman in the late '80s-early '90s during Foreman's comeback?

Be great win for Foreman if he pulled it off. Despite the huge amount of money allegedly to be made I think Tyson was in no-win situation.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

Lennox Lewis over Rid**** Bowe. It was a crucial fight historically and if Lewis had a stoppage win over a prime Bowe, it would have been huge for his legacy and I think everybody would rate lewis as a certified top 3 ATG HW.

You beat me to it! Lennox over Bowe would have been epic. At least he got his gold and MBE for whooping him in the ams.

[joeandthebums]

Thought time post my pick.

Ezzard Charles vs. Tony Zale. Middleweight Title 1942.

Bump the non-title fight at the Garden between Zale and Billy Conn and get Zale to squeeze in one last title defense before he joins up.

Charles defeats Zale.

Good Points

1 - The title remains active.
2 - Plenty of title opportunities.
3 - Charles reputation is greatly enhanced

The title remains active

Charles himself went into service little over a year after Zale, so while it's possible he would of retained title and gone into service with it frozen, it would of got a bit more of an airing.

Plenty of title opportunities

While I can only assume, I believe Charles would be a champ who takes on all comers.

Whilst he might of only had time to make two to three defenses the list of possible opponents gives that era great options.

Holman Williams, Jake LaMotta, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Kid Tunero, Jose Basora, Eddie Booker, Jack Chase.

Charles reputation is greatly enhanced

Had great amateur career. Takes Middleweight crown. Whether he keeps it going into service or not, once out he'd be a Light-Heavyweight and hopefully interested and gets chance to take crown.

Goes on up again to take Heavyweight crown as is a 3 weight champion.

Maybe we get a bit more footage of him and he is an automatic top 5 on everyone's list.

[Mugwump]

2010?

I think Mayweather suffers slightly more than Pacquiao from the two never meeting, regardless of whose to blame or who would of won.

The winner would of had a great claim at being the fighter of the decade on top of the legacy impact.

I find it impossible to rank one fighter above all others over a decade or longer period - so I generally don't bother. However, irrespective of Mayweather's immense talent, I would never select a fighter with an unbeaten record.

No fighter is unbeatable and so we should always be su****ious of fighters at the end of their careers with no losses.

Indeed, I don't think you can be truly great and undefeated.

Far too much importance is assigned to holding a '0' in one's losses column these days. It's for this reason half the main board sees nothing wrong with ranking unbeaten if unproven young prospects above a guy like Carl Froch who, despite a couple of competitive defeats, has taken on a tougher block of opponents in five years than five fighters might meet combined.

[joeandthebums]

I find it impossible to rank one fighter above all others over a decade or longer period - so I generally don't bother. However, irrespective of Mayweather's immense talent, I would never select a fighter with an unbeaten record.

I find myself agreeing with you. I cannot say that one fighter is the definitive fighter of any decade when looking back.

I can only pick three of four per decade, but then others are more comfortable in making that decision.

The BWAA selected Roy Jones Jr for the 90's and Manny Pacquiao for the 00's.

No fighter is unbeatable and so we should always be su****ious of fighters at the end of their careers with no losses.

I think all records are open to scrutiny and the more we look the more we learn about the scene at the time.

Indeed, I don't think you can be truly great and undefeated.

I can understand your point of view and I'm also a fan of a fighter taking a meaningful loss just to see how they come back from it.

I'll give two polar opposite example;

When Robinson gave away poundage to LaMotta and lost it knocked his prestige. Tight for time before induction he rushed into meeting Jackie Wilson, long considered his equal by those on the West Coast, got the decision and then in a return with LaMotta implemented a better strategy and took the decision. In 21 days he had redeemed his reputation.

When Hamed lost to Barrera, he spoke immediately in the aftermath that great fighters lose, great fighters beat other great fighters, great fighters come back and went on to say he'd beat Barrera next time. He didn't enforce the return match clause and despite returning to the ring a year later never attempted to establish himself again.

Far too much importance is assigned to holding a '0' in one's losses column these days. It's for this reason half the main board sees nothing wrong with ranking unbeaten if unproven young prospects above a guy like Carl Froch who, despite a couple of competitive defeats, has taken on a tougher block of opponents in five years than five fighters might meet combined.

I agree again, for prospects the '0' is vital for their marketing, much the same way these feeder belts seem to be of value.