LET'S GET 1 THING STRAIGHT! vol.1: Boxers and their "prime"... I have some questions...

[SuikodenII]

1st... How long do you consider a fighters prime is? A # of years? A # of fights? Until they retire? long time? short time?

2nd... When a fighter has a "2nd prime" after a falling off period, should their 1st prime be taken into consideration when matching them up against current opposition? What about all-time matching up?

3rd... When does a fighter actually enter their prime? First major victory? First title bout?

4th... If a fighter has a bad loss over 5 years ago, but was considered in his prime, and still is in their prime now, should it factor in their current matching up with current opposition? What about 10 years ago, same circumstances?

5th, finally... When does a fighter's prime actually/officially end?


When answering these questions, I want you to consider boxers of past and present

 

[mr. smoke weed]

Good thread, I'll come back after I put some thought to it.

Brehs...... @Newzz @Jello Biafra @krackdagawd @TheNig @Mook @reservoirdogs @SkiHatDaGawd @HARLEM AL @hyperman25 @LeVraiPapi @synistr @theflyest @The Fukin Prophecy @InvictusAeternusEternus @Yuzo @LauderdaleBoss @Amare's Right Hook @Mr. Leonidas @GzUp drop your thoughts

 

[patscorpio]

quick thoughts

1st... How long do you consider a fighters prime is? A # of years? A # of fights? Until they retire? long time? short time? to me length of prime is a variation of factors: age, age of pro debut, number of fights, number of rounds, level of activity, type of fights, opposition, years and number of fights in the amateur ranks, training (particularly sparring). you'd get a very skewed range across the board for all fighters. rigo is somebody ive said is in his prime considering he had a very later start in the pros..doesn't even have that much damage on him either or fightd, but he is operating at 122 where their fighters are more known to fall off more to biological age as a factor than the higher up divisions..i truly think a slide, being he is 35, will happen to him very soon

2nd... When a fighter has a "2nd prime" after a falling off period, should their 1st prime be taken into consideration when matching them up against current opposition? What about all-time matching up? yes to both..bernard hopkins is a perfect example..most of his well known and celebrated victories started at the tail end of his 1st prime (with tito) and even as he slowed down (the fights after the the taylor 1 and 2) he was still making younger fighters look bad in his 2nd prime and got more names on his record..the big knock were against bhop is he didn't have a big victory over another big name middle when he was younger even though the performances were

3rd... When does a fighter actually enter their prime? First major victory? First title bout?
i think its a combination of things..typically i think it starts over a win over somebody of significance (ex champion, faded contender, actual, seasoned,contender, another up and coming contender as fighter) and then the type of win streak against the type of opposition faced going forward

4th... If a fighter has a bad loss over 5 years ago, but was considered in his prime, and still is in their prime now, should it factor in their current matching up with current opposition? What about 10 years ago, same circumstances?
sure because it tells you if they were able to come back and stay at a high level in their career...chris byrd...he got ko'ed against ike but stops vitali...loses to wlad but was able to whip tua and beat holyfield

5th, finally... When does a fighter's prime actually/officially end? - when you start seeing a consistent (either slow or drastic) slide in performance from a fight...fernando vargas is a good example of a fighter you can pinpoint the exact fight when his prime came to an end

 

[SuikodenII]

Good thread, I'll come back after I put some thought to it.

Brehs...... @Newzz @Jello Biafra @krackdagawd @TheNig @Mook @reservoirdogs @SkiHatDaGawd @HARLEM AL @hyperman25 @LeVraiPapi @synistr @theflyest @The Fukin Prophecy @InvictusAeternusEternus @Yuzo @LauderdaleBoss @Amare's Right Hook @Mr. Leonidas @GzUp drop your thoughts

SOrry ass site, where's the goddamn rep when you need it

 

[SuikodenII]

quick thoughts

1st... How long do you consider a fighters prime is? A # of years? A # of fights? Until they retire? long time? short time? to me length of prime is a variation of factors: age, age of pro debut, number of fights, number of rounds, level of activity, type of fights, opposition, years and number of fights in the amateur ranks, training (particularly sparring). you'd get a very skewed range across the board for all fighters. rigo is somebody ive said is in his prime considering he had a very later start in the pros..doesn't even have that much damage on him either or fightd, but he is operating at 122 where their fighters are more known to fall off more to biological age as a factor than the higher up divisions..i truly think a slide, being he is 35, will happen to him very soon

2nd... When a fighter has a "2nd prime" after a falling off period, should their 1st prime be taken into consideration when matching them up against current opposition? What about all-time matching up? yes to both..bernard hopkins is a perfect example..most of his well known and celebrated victories started at the tail end of his 1st prime (with tito) and even as he slowed down (the fights after the the taylor 1 and 2) he was still making younger fighters look bad in his 2nd prime and got more names on his record..the big knock were against bhop is he didn't have a big victory over another big name middle when he was younger even though the performances were

3rd... When does a fighter actually enter their prime? First major victory? First title bout?
i think its a combination of things..typically i think it starts over a win over somebody of significance (ex champion, faded contender, actual, seasoned,contender, another up and coming contender as fighter) and then the type of win streak against the type of opposition faced going forward

4th... If a fighter has a bad loss over 5 years ago, but was considered in his prime, and still is in their prime now, should it factor in their current matching up with current opposition? What about 10 years ago, same circumstances?
sure because it tells you if they were able to come back and stay at a high level in their career...chris byrd...he got ko'ed against ike but stops vitali...loses to wlad but was able to whip tua and beat holyfield

5th, finally... When does a fighter's prime actually/officially end? - when you start seeing a consistent (either slow or drastic) slide in performance from a fight...fernando vargas is a good example of a fighter you can pinpoint the exact fight when his prime came to an end

Great answers

Would you mind stickying for a lil while my Nig................erian?

 

[Master Teacher]

prime is an age thing no matter how people spin it

20-30 is an athlete's prime, it has nothing to do with how you perform, it's just a physical fac

 

[SuikodenII]

prime is an age thing no matter how people spin it

20-30 is an athlete's prime, it has nothing to do with how you perform, it's just a physical fac

Interesting, can you elaborate with some examples for us?

Also, Would that mean Bernard Hopkins' prime ended before he ever fought Trinidad? And his 1st professional bout (a loss) be considered during his prime?

 

[Master Teacher]

Interesting, can you elaborate with some examples for us?

Also, Would that mean Bernard Hopkins' prime ended before he ever fought Trinidad? And his 1st professional bout (a loss) be considered during his prime?

Yes Bernard Hopkins was in his physical prime when he fought Roy Jones, but he had more boxing knowledge when he fought Trinidad.

It's like Jordan in his last championship, he was a better player than he was in the 80's, but he was not in his prime, he couldn't do none of the shyt he did in the 80's, he just understood basketball more in his 30's

 

[SuikodenII]

Yes Bernard Hopkins was in his physical prime when he fought Roy Jones, but he had more boxing knowledge when he fought Trinidad.

It's like Jordan in his last championship, he was a better player than he was in the 80's, but he was not in his prime, he couldn't do none of the shyt he did in the 80's, he just understood basketball more in his 30's

Roy?

I was referring to his very first fight, would that loss be considered in his prime?

 

[morris]

How long they continue to successfully implement their style.

I.e. .. pressure fighters with strong chins..until they get ko'd

Fast boxers who lose their speed...that's why the fundamental boxer will always outlast the flashy phenom in the ring.

Mayweather, Toney, Hopkins, JMMARQUEZ are fighters that come tout mind that had a great base whof got better as the rounds and years progressed

 

[Black Ball]

Yes Bernard Hopkins was in his physical prime when he fought Roy Jones, but he had more boxing knowledge when he fought Trinidad.

It's like Jordan in his last championship, he was a better player than he was in the 80's, but he was not in his prime, he couldn't do none of the shyt he did in the 80's, he just understood basketball more in his 30's

Physical Prime is not the same thing as Prime. Prime is a measure of performance, skill, & ability. Being physically spry doesn't necessitate having the tools to give your best performance. A late bloomer in the boxing game could be green at ages 28-30, but dominate there after because of little wear and tear on their bodies and growth through experience. Boxing is not equal to Football or Basketball.

 

[InvictusAeternusEternus]

I always looked at prime as simply the time period during which the fighter was at there best! That could be early like A Mike Tyson or later like A B-Hop it varies greatly based on the circumstances. Usually though it comes in that mid to late 20's(sometimes early 30's) when you attain a combination of being at (or just passed) your athletic peak and the time period that is the beginning of when you reach your mental peak.

 

[Kunty McPhuck]

1st... How long do you consider a fighters prime is? A # of years? A # of fights? Until they retire? long time? short time?

2nd... When a fighter has a "2nd prime" after a falling off period, should their 1st prime be taken into consideration when matching them up against current opposition? What about all-time matching up?

3rd... When does a fighter actually enter their prime? First major victory? First title bout?

4th... If a fighter has a bad loss over 5 years ago, but was considered in his prime, and still is in their prime now, should it factor in their current matching up with current opposition? What about 10 years ago, same circumstances?

5th, finally... When does a fighter's prime actually/officially end?


When answering these questions, I want you to consider boxers of past and present

1. Every fighter/athlete is different, some peak early (Tyson, alot of Latino fighters, especially the small weight fighters use to be on the downside of their career when they hit their late 20's, which is suppose to be an athletes peak) some peak later (Hopkins is the best example, Maravilla, Froch was about 29/30 when he fought Pascal and got better as he got older, throw a curve ball Wlad?) or some are just so good, you never really know when there prime is (Floyd or Roy).

2. Too subjective, you have to factor in the level of competition they've been competing at during the end of the first and the start of the second. If theyve fallen off the champsionship radar for years or they've been unlucky w/ injuries, or how many defeats do they need to have taken, before going on a winning streak. Arguement could be made for Barrera for this, then again he would be a good fit for #4.

3. Overall you would say, the first big win vs a fighter who has genuinely fought at higher level (not someone who fought for a title once and never to be seen at that level again), then they have at that point in their career.

4. Randall Bailey is my answer to this. Honestly, depends on the levels that theyve fought at in that time, if theyve operated at world level or just below at gatekeeper level and picking wins.

5. If a heavy defeat has happened like to Hatton vs Floyd and then Manny, or victory in an all out war when it has come at a cost of leaving part of yourself in the ring ala Apollo vs Rocky (Morales/Barrera I & II). or when the skills/atheleticism have slowly declined, like Cotto/Mosley or Maravilla/Murray or like Roy's prime ended when he beat Ruiz.

 

[R=G]

prime is an age thing no matter how people spin it

20-30 is an athlete's prime, it has nothing to do with how you perform, it's just a physical fac

27-33 is a prime...football? A running back? They slide under that. Boxing? Yeah....25-33....you should be able to handle anything with focused training and no shaky injuries to drag you down.

 

[R=G]

Interesting, can you elaborate with some examples for us?

Also, Would that mean Bernard Hopkins' prime ended before he ever fought Trinidad? And his 1st professional bout (a loss) be considered during his prime?

Hopkins fought Trinidad real smart..knew when to grab, was accurate on his punching, and set up combos as Trinidad got frustrated. He was known for his running in training so would was gonna go the full blown 12 rounds without burning out. But this is also why Hagler is so impressive...he would go 15 rounds and still throw hard ass crisp punches that late...same thing for Sugar Ray Robinson. Special.