List some fights involving 2 prime ATG's

[IronDanHamza]

I'm starting to understand this "forum thing"! Someone makes a comment then others want to jump on it and rag or degrade or simply discredit!! Personally I think a Great fighter remains a great fighter till he stops. I understand prime meaning at his best but the great ones give their best no matter what age or era. Dempsey gave his all, that was great. Sugar against Turpin certainly wasn't Ray at his best or in his prime but his effort was incredable. You kids here need to get wins and loses out of your minds and understand that max efforts is what everyone wants to see at a fight. The better man that night wins but theres nothing wrong with a lose when everything is given to try to win. Being a fan is fine but trying to understand how a fighter has to live would serve some of you well.
ps Schmeling being held captive by hitler stopped his career and thats why some fans don't think of him as a great fighter. Just look at his tapes and you'll see a guy who is very sound at everything he does, he could punch hard also and his defeat over Louis "didn't" shock boxing people at that time. Is anyone in this discussion a fighter current or past? Ray

Of course they'll still be remembered as great. And I see what you're saying.

But the TS is specifically asking for examples of an ATG facing another ATG when both in their prime.

Obviously, the likes of Tunney-Dempsey and Charles-Walcott don't fit that description.

[Sugarj]

I'm starting to understand this "forum thing"! Someone makes a comment then others want to jump on it and rag or degrade or simply discredit!! Personally I think a Great fighter remains a great fighter till he stops. I understand prime meaning at his best but the great ones give their best no matter what age or era. Dempsey gave his all, that was great. Sugar against Turpin certainly wasn't Ray at his best or in his prime but his effort was incredable. You kids here need to get wins and loses out of your minds and understand that max efforts is what everyone wants to see at a fight. The better man that night wins but theres nothing wrong with a lose when everything is given to try to win. Being a fan is fine but trying to understand how a fighter has to live would serve some of you well.
ps Schmeling being held captive by hitler stopped his career and thats why some fans don't think of him as a great fighter. Just look at his tapes and you'll see a guy who is very sound at everything he does, he could punch hard also and his defeat over Louis "didn't" shock boxing people at that time. Is anyone in this discussion a fighter current or past? Ray

I wouldn't take any offense. You'll come across all sorts in forums. I totally see your angle too and rate your posting highly.

At the end of the day there are great fighters in their prime; and great fighters who fight great fights post prime.

If the thread were dedicated to great fights involving great fighters, we could have a plethora of vintage post prime efforts from fighters such as Benn vs McClellan, Foreman vs Moorer, Hopkins vs Tarver, Holyfield vs Lewis 2, Walcott vs Marciano etc.

Leonard vs Hearns 2 won the Ring fight of the year in what? 1989. Superb fight, but hardly prime for prime as in 1981. I think the thread starter was really only interested in fighters considered in their prime from an observational or historic perspective.

[Miburo]

I define this as two fighters at their peak meeting up, which should disqualify bouts such as Leonard-Hearns (Hearns settled better into 154 and his legs/chin were sturdier). Going in it might have seemed that way though.

[Scott9945]

I define this as two fighters at their peak meeting up, which should disqualify bouts such as Leonard-Hearns (Hearns settled better into 154 and his legs/chin were sturdier). Going in it might have seemed that way though.

But many would say that Tommy Hearns that night would have beaten almost any welterweight ever.

[The_Demon]

I'm starting to understand this "forum thing"! Someone makes a comment then others want to jump on it and rag or degrade or simply discredit!! Personally I think a Great fighter remains a great fighter till he stops. I understand prime meaning at his best but the great ones give their best no matter what age or era. Dempsey gave his all, that was great. Sugar against Turpin certainly wasn't Ray at his best or in his prime but his effort was incredable. You kids here need to get wins and loses out of your minds and understand that max efforts is what everyone wants to see at a fight. The better man that night wins but theres nothing wrong with a lose when everything is given to try to win. Being a fan is fine but trying to understand how a fighter has to live would serve some of you well.
ps Schmeling being held captive by hitler stopped his career and thats why some fans don't think of him as a great fighter. Just look at his tapes and you'll see a guy who is very sound at everything he does, he could punch hard also and his defeat over Louis "didn't" shock boxing people at that time. Is anyone in this discussion a fighter current or past? Ray

No,you dont understand this 'forum thing'

Stop being a baby and crying everytime somebody disagrees with you or corrects you on something

Your clearly a very knowledgable guy,but stop thinking the whole forum is against you