The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

[ICB]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

Sorry Fenster but MAB wouldn't of schooled Junior Jones at any point in his career, MAB tried to box cautiously against Junior Jones in there 2nd fight and he still lost.

It wasn't just his right hand it was his piston like jab, that gave MAB alot of problems aswell.

Just because Junior Jones lost to lesser fighters, because he was inconsistent. And sometimes his chin let him down, doesn't mean anything.

Styles makes fights and MAB never did fight another fighter, like Junior Jones. I just don't think he could of ever have beaten Junior Jones at his best.

Especially the Junior Jones who outpointed Orlando Canizales by 8 rounds to 4.