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

Tough one. Adamek really appeared to be at his best at Cruiser. Perhaps he hadn't yet hit his prime as a fighter at light heavyweight. Hard to say.

 

Thanks. I figure you'd be busy complaining the deck is stacked against you and I'd win.

 

I watched all of them. Youtube is God. Golden Boy:TLC: took a beating there this past week.

Hopkins was in fine form when he was bowling over guys. Taylor figured him out, then it was announced Hopkins prime was over. He did what all guys do when their prime is over, he moves up a division, adds 15lbs and hands out beatings to guys like Tarver, who took more beating in one fight vs Hopkins than he had in three versus Jones. This does not compute.

I asked a long time ago how Hopkins losses to Taylor sat comfortably with Hopkins stunning ransacking of Tarver and consensus wisdom was that "Hopkins was drained at 160". Hence the old lie about "prime by division" which slipped out, before it was furled in an awful fucking hurry.

 

Hopkins was pretty clearly no longer in his prime as early as the Oscar fight It happens man, guys get older. They wear out physically.

 

You'd win anyways. My Gin playing prime was when I was at 115.

 

moving up 15lbs certainly helped him. he became overly cautious at middleweight because he obviously was weakening himself staying there so long.

 

And then they beat up Tarver. Gotcha.

 

His body bloomed at the higher weight, he had more energy at 175 than a guy who had been there all his career. He didn't lose again until he fought Joe, if I recall.. He turned in a dominant brilliant performance against a guy who had DESTROYED the Taylor he had looked so poor against twice. And one of the Pavlik vs Taylor fights had been at 166 or so, correct? He even managed THAT after he lost to Calzaghe.

He was plenty prime at 160. He might just have been tight at the weight.

 

Excellent past prime performance against a lethargic opponent. He was very precise with his limited endurance that night.

 

He was dead at the weight. Hopkins was tight at the weight. They both took drugs and they both rehydrated at the higher weights and they both enjoyed more success because they were still able to do it. Lets's get down to it here.

 

And then he turned in an even better performance vs Joe Calzaghe, giving Joe a harder fight than Kessler, a name upon so much was so recently built.

Wow. Hopkins must really be Dee Graytis, turning in all of this magnificent performances years after he lost to Taylor.

It makes one wonder how he struggled with guys like Segundo Mercado. He mustn't have been in his prime then.

 

? He looked like an old man against Calzaghe.

 

::

What did he look like vs Pascal?

 

An old man in there with a relative amateur.

 

he looked even older and rustier

 

Hopkins is a fraud. Anyone who thinks he is an all time great knows nothing. His entire career represents everything that is wrong with this sport.

 

I thought that the definition of a fighter being "past-prime" was when he got his first loss (Tyson, RJJ,etc)

 

So....much of the basis of Frochs pfp greatness was a "relative amateur" Where does that leave Kessler?

I said it before, when you make enough of fumbling stabs with the same filthy syringe, somebody, somewhere, eventually winds up with Hep.

By dawn, Andre Ward will be down around 12th on the pfp list ::

 

Yeah, that's been used too. A myriad of definitions have been used for these things. "pfp", "prime", "undisputed", none of them are rigidly defined or capable of same.

It depends on the individual fighter. Thats why Steve was wrong to bring in Foreman- Foreman was inactive for too long. Hopkins never was. So the mere fact that both men had wins or big fights in their 40's is not as congruous as first seems.


At 38 and 39 Hopkins was quoted as saying that he was "like Grandmas peaches in the cellar, gathering dust, I been preserved"

Just where the line got drawn is not clear.

Just wheer

 

I agree. His MW tenure was fraudulent, its one of the weakest 160lb divisions of all time, it only made any sense or any money once they brought Margarito Mark I up from 147 to sprinkle some gypsum around the shop. It was specificaly setup to get a Hopkins vs Tito final. Holmes showing in his semi with Hopkins was one of the worst displays of professional cowardice ever. He did nothing. And when Hopkins finally got around this beefed up Welter, the fight that not even 9-11 could stop, the myth was propagated and cultured, a splice here, a graft there, some manure in around the base, see how she blooms. And Saint Bernard would fend off some Greenfly from time to time, the Hakkars, Eastmans, Joppys of this world. "He eclipsed Monzon", went the cry.

And then when the rugged hay-bale came up Little Rock and beat his ass, we got this Jim Bowie, line-in-the-sand nonsense about how his prime had already passed.

Bodyshot!! Bodyshot!! Bodyshot!!

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TjX-_JtV5Ss?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TjX-_JtV5Ss?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Couple of glasses of Uncle Contes Tonic Water, a quick read of Hawkings and Einsteins works on time travel and hey presto, prime restored.:shit:

 

Indeed. The men in charge wanted Hopkins to win the tournament.

 

“Fighter “A" never lost his prime.

But what about when he lost to fighter “B"?

He was past his prime when he lost that fight.

How do you know?

Well clearly he was past his prime. How else do you explain him losing?

 

Right. Too often the losses of great fighters are interpreted as the end of their primes.

This is why Hopkins has appeared so much in this thread. Most were sure that his losses to Taylor were simply due to his being past his prime. But when he went on to have continued success at 175, this case was more difficult to defend.

Unless. Unless we make it about the weight, and the fact a 40 year old man had finally out-grown his weight class. Then we can say that Hopkins lost, not because he was past his prime, but because he'd past his prime as a middleweight. Hopkins in his middleweight prime? He would've whipped Taylor. Taylor got lucky. He got to Hopkins just as he'd past his prime as a middleweight, but had not ascended to his light heavyweight prime.

Why don't we just make this rule:

If a great fighter loses to an opponent we expect him to beat, he's past his prime.

 

Nah, I don't like that rule.

 

Obviously. It's ridiculous. Unfortunately, it appears to have taken hold among many.

 

I thought Hopkins looked well past his prime in the Eastman fight, and said so at the time. He was almost 40, obviously he was no longer at his best as a fighter. ::

 

But his best wins arguably occurred at 166 and 175.

Unless you think Tito was his best win.

 

I think a lot of people would rank Tito as his best win. Either way a fighter's best win doesn't always happen in their prime.

 

Tito is absolutely not his best win. A leaden footed, 1 dimensional welterweight should have been easy pickings for a middleweight great, and he was.

 

Foolishly.