When

cc # 857 Ice Cold . the funny thing is, and I am guilty of saying this statement. " I have benefited for the time off, away from boxing" the truth is, That statement is a LIE...the only benefit from time off is healing an injury, but that the only benefit ! in reality time off hurts your boxing career, I don't care who you are , activity is the key to success. having a fight always scheduled keeps you focused, keeps you maintaining good habits, and give you something to look forward too, it keeps you razor sharp skill wise, keeps you in the gym . Time off dulls the blade tremendously, and as the years go by that blade gets harder and harder to sharpen.

When I first saw Mike Tyson Id been in the game 30 years Ive never been excited as much seeing a fighter for the first time before or since, True what Lords says about the history if hed have gone with the good guys.A mate of mine is doing Tysons official Biograthey he tells me its the truth the whole truth should be intereting, its out May I think cc Lords

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

When I first saw Mike Tyson Id been in the game 30 years Ive never been excited as much seeing a fighter for the first time before or since, True what Lords says about the history if hed have gone with the good guys.A mate of mine is doing Tysons official Biograthey he tells me its the truth the whole truth should be intereting, its out May I think cc Lords

---

sounds like a great read ! I look forward to it ! cc in 24

Sean another one came to mind, Archie Moor was well past his prime having his best wins, But the fighters later were not as good as the ones he boxed at his peak

So Scrap

you're saying

ALL fighters are in their prime at a certain age. At this age GOOD MATCHMAKING keeps them unbeaten. When beaten they are CLEARLY past their prime. But will continue to pull off BIG wins if matched with the right opponents...

So you might as well say PRIME is irrelevant, no? All that matters is matching the right fighters at the right time?

No thats not always the case, Lenoard v Hearns 1 both were near or at their peaks pshysically and emotionally without baggage both had good wins after but to me were past their bests. Ive got this theory of 6 thats how many times you can go to the well on average, great fighters seem to have a deeper well and their psychology adaptable thats what makes them great because the average Joe couldnt handle the emotional exams greats go through. But at the end of the day theres a Price.

Okay i think i have a good question here.

When was Hopkins at his peak? :-\

Was it during his 2001 destruction of Tito?
Or was it during his 2006 humiliation of Tarver?

Hmm, that is a toughie!

Or when he Boxed Jones, To be honest I havent spent to much time watching him. The post origanally was to get peoples views on fighters who were popular and when they reached there peak because of promotional ties its sometimes not what it seems, enjoyed it some very good points made by you all. Im sure there will be more a very reasonable debate.