Printable View
I was just wondering this because I got into a debate with a friend over Tyson's prime.
I say he was prime when he lost to douglass, he says it wasn't the same tyson that had beaten everyone else. So then I asked. Was it the same Tyson that fought and beat Razor Ruddock twice? In which he replied "yes".
The debate basically boiled down to us seemingly agreeing that most will only say a fighter is prime when he's winning. ONly because I told him that Tyson beat Razor after the Douglass fight.
I just thought it was when the boxer was at his best!
Sometimes it's not obvious when the boxer is at their best.
Loads of factors in place, difficult to judge.
In boxing it's hard to consider a fighter's prime. Usually it means when a fighter is at his best. That's the general consensus, regardless if he's in his physical prime or not. Meldrick Taylor was one of the best talents in boxing I've seen. But I remember watching the HBO documentary on his fight with JCC and they said something like this, "A fighter can lose years of his prime in a brutal fight like that." And Taylor was basically a shot fighter at around 27 or 28 because of too many brutal wars. Even though Taylor was in his physical prime he was past his boxing prime.
ANother example would be Muhammad ALi who was in his physical prime at 29 against Frazier in their first fight but was actually somewhat past his boxing prime because of the long layoff and he was never the same Ali of the 66-67 one before he was ban.
Another example would be Bernard Hopkins who I felt was in his boxing prime when he was 30 years old and that's when you start losing your physical prime. Hopkins was just a better fighter in his 30's than when he was in his physical prime of his 20s.
So imo "prime" means when a boxer is at his best, and it doesn't have to mean in his physical prime.
There are certain situations where you can say a fighter is not 'prime' such as the Ali who came back after years off suspended or the Ray Leonard who returned to fight Hagler. However, I think people often tend to use it as a way to excuse a loss by a previously unbeaten fighter who looked unstoppable, such as in the case of Tyson or Don Curry. I can agree that the Tyson who came out of jail was not prime, but the guy who fought Douglas, underprepared or not, was still a prime fighter.
A fighters prime to me is when a fighter is at the physical and mental peak.
For example, Hopkins prime never started till 1997 imo and his prime continued on till 2004, To some people that may be me excusing his loss to Jones (in 93) And his close losses to Taylor (twice in 2005) and Calzaghe (in 2008 ).
agreed 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Prime is mostly rubbish (unless blatanly obvious a fighter is way past his best and shouldn't be fighting) because physical and mental prime occur at different times and, as Jaz touched on, it's mainly used to excuse a great fighters defeat.
He was too old, too green, had too much money, wasn't motivated because of his small purse, was weight drained, was too small moving up, had a bad training camp, needed to do a shit, had the wrong socks etc....
The problem with assessing boxing compared with other sports is most fighters only ever meet once, so whenever a close fight happens it's impossible to determine who the greater fighter really is.
Even matched fighters would probably need to meet a minimum of five times to get an accurate result. As many rematch results show, the form can be instantly turned round.
A fighter's prime is that brief stretch of time where physical ability and ring knowledge intersect.
A fighter's prime is when he's experienced enough to have a complete understanding of what he's doing in the ring, but he's still at a young enough age where his raw physical skills haven't begun to deteriorate at all.
But then when that prime fighter gets into a rough fight and wins by a SD, then kayos his next opponent. Many will say he was prime in the second fight but off in the first one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Makes you wonder what age we could say that Hopkins was in his prime. The 2001 version that wiped out Trinidad or the 2008 model that outboxed Pavlik?
Pavlik was a tailor made for the old hopkins who only needed his knowledge to beat a young fighter with too much confidence in his own power...the 2001 bernard 80/20 possibly would have stopped pavlik inside of 10...Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciferTheGreat
Now a days it's a useless over used term just like swagger, ducked, most feared, blah blah etc. I don't know what the term was supposed to mean but now when a fighter wins or is winning he's in his prime, all of the sudden if they loose their not. One of the easiest excuses to use post fight there is.
Physical abilities in the ring tend to increase and ring smarts tend to increase, their peak is when they have the highest level of both. It is usually only something you can categorize in hindsight.
One thats hard to peg is Holyfield.The version that kept his head and outboxed a viable returning Foreman.....or the broke down Tyson and walked through Moorer.
Or a question Ive always wondered...at the risk of being laughed off.Foreman??Which version.He was raw and primed in youth,physical ability in his first run but the comeback saw a superior thinker and great disipline with better timing.I think that version may have topped young Foreman :-X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Even he felt he would have beaten his younger self..Holyfield said the same thing.
"Back then I used to beat people by imposing my will, now if you can't out think me won't beat me" - Holyfield before the second fight with moorer.