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

Pacquiao clearly.

He hasn't lost or had close controversial fights during his prime.

During the 1st one before he was KO'ed in 96.

Then until 99.

After that he was clearly in his prime until Marquez-Morales beat him and then he lost his hunger and became past prime but then he regained his hunger, became a master boxer until he fought Marquez again where he was suddenly but very clearly shot.

Marquez would have no shot had he faced a prime Pacquiao.

Let's see if Pacquiao goes and finds the 5th prime of his life and beats Mayweather.

 

People only had to look at the press conferences really to see a cruiserweight staring down at a welterweight.

 

Mike Tyson

 

I dispute that one hotly.

 

Tyson was surely in his prime against Douglas.

 

Not according to a lot of Tyson fanatics, a notion I find extremely dubious.

 

This is why I think it's an important topic. Many mistakenly interpret the losses of top fighters as a signal their primes are over. And Tyson is a good example. You can argue that his emotional state and training factored into his loss, but there's no case to be made that Tyson had passed his physical prime by the time of the loss.

 

Its a function of fighters being constantly pushed to have an, '0,' as part of their marketing image.

Little wonder, then, that when a guys rep is in some part owing to his being undefeated, fans confuse first-up losses with the end of a man's prime. Whats REALLY worrying is I think some of the boxers themselves (Cotto & Hatton, to name but two I suspect) may also buy into it needlessly.

Tyson was unquestionably in his prime, off-night or not.

 

:clapagain: Hey, your pretty smart for an arab.

 

::

Nothing Arabian about my Portuguese roots...though I feel such subtleties as the distinction between Western Europe & the Middle East may be lost living in the Shire.

 

it takes a brave fellow to receive eight figures while geting beat by the top guys

 

i sense a lot of sarcasm from you. but we;re gonna enroll you in mexican shirt's truth serum boxing course so that u can realize the errors in your ways

 

Oh hai der Neil.

 

Roberto Duran

 

"Prime" is not properly defined. Boxing is such a mental game. A guy gets distracted, is he now still in his prime? I think he is. Your prime ends when you can't win no matter how hard you try because you don't have it anymore. But even at that, I'm still not sure. What's a reflex? Its the time taken for the eyes to see, the mind to comprehend, and legs, arms or head to respond. Its a very fudged area and impossible to nail down. How do you separate nervous reflex from mental process? Suppose the mind slows down? How do you separate the brain from the mind? Guys talk about not seeing the gaps anymore but their eyes might be 100%, their vision might be 20-20 all the way. They see it but they don't comprehend it.

I think each case of "prime" will turn on its own facts.

Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas. We know this because Mike spent years out of the game and still had good combinations and good reflexes when he came back. People will say he had regressed but regressed from what? Regressed from his prime.

Maybe Douglas was in HIS prime when he beat Mike. What was Douglas prime? Maybe Douglas only realized his prime when he got so upset that he fought the way he did against Mike.

 

Part in bold is rubbish, proven wrong probably thousands of times.

the period or state of greatest perfection or vigor of human life: a man in his prime.

 

I never said that that was THE ONLY TIME you prime ends. Obviously, the prime ends when a man cannot physically do it any more. His prime is over. That is beyond dispute. Who here would argue that a mans prime is NOT over when he can't physically compete any more??? But thats NOT THE ONLY TIME his prime can end.

Obviously, if a fighter falls out of love with fighting and retires, people will say he retired in his prime. But he didn't retire in his prime. Did he? He retired because his prime- namely the fusion of flesh and will- had been interrupted- in this case by the cessation of will.

Yet the fallacy of this, or its incongruity at least, is exposed during routine practical application, because to so apply it would be to deem that James Douglas did not beat a "Prime" Mike Tyson, so broadly removed was Mike, psychologically, from being dedicated to prize fighting at the time.

The fallacy is writ-large when we consider that Mike would have psychologically reconnected in a fucking hurry to stop his ass being kicked. Its not a game of hockey. You don't concede 10 goals and walk at the buzzer. Its a game of survival. Mike re-engaged mentally, as evidenced by a knockdown and failed regardless. Douglas, in HIS prime, mentally and physically, overcame Mike.

He was in his prime. Douglas kicked his ass. Douglas own prime was brought to an abrupt halt by the wilting of the same desire and mental drive which had defined his win over Tyson. The question then becomes whether Evander Holyfield beat a "Prime James Douglas". Did he? Probably not, and here is why it is such a hard concept to define: the loss of will translates itself into sloppy training habits and sloppy lifestyles which impede the physical.

Thus, the only fair conclusion we can draw, is that each case has to turn on its own facts. It becomes a matter of degree. Was Douglas in better or worse mental and physical condition when he lost to Holyfield than Tyson was when Tyson lost to Douglas?

I would say worse. Douglas was hooked into alcohol and binge-eating.

 

Good post.

 

My posts are always good. You're just having a temporary, intermittent epiphany.:truce:

 

I will concede that three or four out of every 10 posts you make are good.

 

Even more contentious than Tyson.

 

Duran is an odd case. The loss to Kirkland Laing would suggest he was past his best, the win over Davey Moore would suggest he was back to his best, but then Moore had only a few pro fights. He had that early loss to De Jesus too. But anyone can lose to De Jesus.

 

Duran was clearly out of his prime at welter. His waistline had expanded by 4" (34" from 30") by the time of the Laing fight.

 

But not so in his loss to DeJesus, which irrefutably took place during his prime.

 

Yes, the DeJesus loss was in his prime. Should be noted though that a) it was a non-title bout, and b) DeJesus was a damn good fighter.

 

But he beat Ray Leonard at Welter. And then he lost to Ray Leonard at Welter. :dunno:

 

I think Duran's prime is at 135. The 147 lb Duran was still a very good fighter when motivated, but not the same as the young kid who terrorized the lightweight division. But I can see the other side of the argument too, I guess, re: beating Ray Leonard..

 

Now you see, you have the concept of "Prime by Division". The physical is intact, the mental is intact, but what effect has extra weight had on either or both?

Steve Dave ruled out Prime by Division but I don't think we can do that. We need to consider everything.

My basic rule is as follows: if X can win a title at 154, then it cannot be said that his "Prime" was adversely affected to a significant degree by weight issues below 154 EXCEPT where he was suffering from making weight, all other things being equal.

If Duran could win titles as high as 168, then 147 is no problem. Conclusion, Duran was in his prime for the Leonard fights, just chose to be a doofus for the 2nd one.

 

Irish.. Do you think Hopkins is in his prime right now?

 

It is unlikely. Put a gun to my head, I would say no. He's not interested in fighting and that is driven by the decline in his overall physical condition thanks to his being 46 or 47, minus the recuperative benefits of PED's.