All Time Great Fighters Who Never Lost in Their Prime...

Disagree with this line of reasoning.....

 

Oh I see, now its "Peak By Division".::

Well if that's the case, Dawson beat a non-peak Adamek and Vitali beat a non-peak Adamek.

I think its obvious that Tomasz had, uh, how does it go...oh "was past his light-heavyweight peak...for...a fight"...he looked mighty faded vs Kanagroo Briggs.

"WILLIAMSON!!! WILLIAMSON!!!! PICK UP THE CHALK!!! PICK UP THE CHALK!!! PUT TOMASZ ON THE CADILLAC BOARD!!HEY!!!.....where is everybody....."

 

Hopkins is tricky. Simultaneous to his declining physical talent, he became even craftier and sneakier in the ring, enabling him to compete at elite level even in his 40's. Difficult to nail his prime.

Floyd to a lesser degree is similar. He's obviously slowed down significantly, but is craftier than ever, possibly as effective as he ever has been, but in a different way than before, relying more on pure skill than speed and agility.

 

The great Ricardo Lopez!!!

On the Hopkins debate, I think he was past his peak when Taylor edged him out --- but it's somewhat debatable, IMO. He peaked very late & just four years earlier, had his career-defining win against Trinidad. Hopkins, to me, was probably near to his peak at age 40. I wouldn't call it crazy if someone said he lost to Taylor in the twilight of his pomp.

 

HITCHENS!!!!!

 

Mr Ike will be seeing you now. ::

 

::

 

Was George Foreman in his prime when he fought Evander Holyfield?

 

Was he weight drained when Ali beat him in '74?

 

Don't know why I said middleweight. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

Answer the question.

 

Everyone knows that at 6'1" or so, that an extra 15lbs of lee-way didn't do Hopkins any harm. When he faced guys who had difficulty making that same weight, he impressed, at least that's the explanation which was offered up for the sheer ease with which he dispensed of Tarver. Jones couldn't make 160, moved up, and looked a lot better.

 

He was 39 or 40 when he lost to Taylor. Obviously on the other side of his prime.

Even in his big wins at higher weights, he won on skill and sucking the life out of a fight. Certainly past his physical prime as an athlete.

 

40 is not a death sentence :nono:

Nor is 10 years of inactivity and obesity related blood pressure issues.

Peace.::

 

So, how do you explain losing to Taylor and then beating, say, Tarver, all things considered? Clearly he had a MW prime and a Light-Heavyweight prime. Neither of which may have occurred in his actual prime. Oh what a tangled web we weave.....:egypt:

 

So "If he can win and retain titles in his late 40's, then the Taylor fight is prime enough" was just you talking out of your ass. Thought so.

 

His prime was obviously at middleweight, before he got older. Not complicated.

Jones is the only loss you can argue for this thread. Although I'd say he improved after that bout.

 

Foreman was out of the game for 10 years. This may have escaped your attention. Some guys benefit from a break. I know of NO boxer who has survived a 10 year gap and, 4 years after that gap again, found himself in his prime, especially considering the fact that he was by then incapable of shedding weight which he never carried in his prime, weight which went way beyond the 15lbs of lean tissue and water which no-10-year-hiatus-having-Hopkins carried.

Be real.

You introduced the theory of weight-by-division and it bit you up the rear end.

 

So why did you introduce the theory of prime-by-division??

Was Ortiz in his prime when be was bombed out by Maidana, or when he was bombed out by Floyd?

 

But he was able to win and defend a titles in his mid-40s. Your words.

I agree, Foreman was not in his prime when he fought Holyfield. Neither was Hopkins vs. Taylor.

 

I retracted that 10 or so posts ago. Wasn't what I meant.

 

Foreman had come off a 10 year retirement. Apples and Apples.

I think Adamek was undefeated in his prime, which stretched from Pineda to McBride.

 

Exactly. Which means winning and defending a title in your mid-40s doesn't prove anything.

 

Oh I see.

Glad to see you are following my advice of screaming Gin, irrespective of what cards are on the table.

www.wikiedia.com/prime-for-pound-for-prime-by-division
Prime-By-Division {00:00 GMT December 19th 2011 to 00:58 GMT December 19th 2011} was an abortive philosophical tenet introduced by pound-for-pound expert Steve_Dave. It was canceled after exactly 0 episodes in favour of a discussion about George Foreman

 

It'll be tough for you to get the better of me here - I'm actually thinking about the fighters at hand. You're picking favourites.

Emotion will consume you, Irish.

 

The Hopkins vs Foreman example is a bad example for a multitude of reasons, all of which I know you are aware of, so I won't bother listing them here.

If Hopkins can break records at 46 by beating a guy whose only previous loss ever was to pfp#4 hero Carl Froch, then saying he was in his prime when he lost to Taylor is no stretch at all.

 

Also, I would defeat you quite easily in a game of Gin.

 

I'm way too fast for a guy relying on purely emotive behaviour, your jingles are always the same.

Did Adamek lose in his prime, yes or no?

 

I will concede it's not a strech... if you haven't watched the fights.

 

Good for you.:bow: