According to many, Curry had a brief prime. It's their way of explaining how he went from knocking out McCrory in two rounds to losing to Honeyghan and just about every decent fighter he faced after that. So his career followed this path because his prime was brief? What a load of shit. Isn't a more sensible explanation that when he begun fighting better competition, he could no longer win? What if we made the same claim of ODH? He had a brief prime that ended following his brilliant defeat of Chavez. After that, he was never the same fighter. How's that sound? Exactly. Ridiculous. It's one thing to note that Ali was past his prime when he fought Larry Holmes and that his loss to him meant very little. It's quite a different thing to blame Curry's loss to Honeyghan and all of his subsequent losses on the sudden end of his prime. It's ridiculous.
Cummon man. Because some guys noticeably decline at an early age, perhaps? :dunno: Would you really make the claim that Benitez was still at his best at 25? Or that the Tyson who fought Douglas at 23 was as good as the one who fought Holmes or Tubbs? Some guys have personal issues that bring them down or that distract them from their training, this shit should really be too obvious to warrant explanation.
I don't think that's valid. David Reid had just as long a prime as anybody else from the '96 Olympic squad.
Okay. But a lack of personal issues or distractions shouldn't constitute a prime. Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas. There's no doubt about it. He just wasn't focused and had distractions. But physically he was in his prime. Just because he didn't perform as well against Douglas as he did against Tubbs doesn't mean he exited his prime. If you define "prime" the way you're suggesting, you could make the claim that Buster Douglas's prime was one day. And that he was past his prime when he lost to Holyfield. Does that sound sensible? Because this scenario is perfectly consistent with your explanation of how or why primes end sooner than others.
David Reid had a eye injury and like Vargas was never the same after fighting Trinidad with his special hand-wraps. What's your point?
So fighters decline at the same rate, outstanding fighters never go off the rails for personal reasons or because they take beatings in great fights or for any other reason? ray:
Yes it does sound sensible. A physical prime doesn't necessarily coincide with a fighter's prime anyway, they are two distinct things. It isn't about the period at which their body was biologically best equipped for success, it's about everything coming together in a boxers life and career for them at a given time to perform at their best. Hopkins and Lennox Lewis were better in their mid 30's than at 25. Benitez was better at 18 than at 25. To me a fighters prime is just their peak, and yes, some guys might only peak on one night and yes, that poses a whole lot of challenges in judging how good a fighter really was or could have been but that's why we differentiate between talent and greatness, talent being far more subjective and less important.
No. A fighter can be ruined by a fight. You think I'm trying to claim that McClellan was still in his prime following the Benn fight? No. Obviously not. And no. Fighters do not decline at the same rate. What I'm claiming though is that too often when a fighter loses it's blamed on his being passed his prime. A great fighter's prime should not be defined by their never having lost. And it shouldn't be over just because they lost. In MM you hear so often a prime this or a prime that would've massacured a fighter they lost to. Too often it's a load of shit. Here's some examples. Hopkins loses twice to Taylor. Some believe it was because Taylor was a superior fighter. Others claim it was because Hopkins was old and past his prime. So what does Hopkins do? He moves up to 175 and beats the tar out of Tarver - a guy who beat RJJ twice and hits like a mule. Take Mosley. He loses twice to Forrest and twice to Wright. Then he barely makes it by Vargas, only to knock him out in the rematch. The he moves back down to 147, arguably beats Cotto and then knocks out the iron-chinned Margarito. Most people would've said after the second Wright fight that Mosley was past his prime. And yet probably the most impressive win in his career occurred in 2009. The point is, a great fighter's prime isn't defined by his ability to beat every fighter he faces. A great fighter can lose, even decisively, and still be in his prime. Too often though this is denied because how could such a great fighter have lost? He can't have unless he's past his prime. I've even heard people make the claim that Hatton is past his prime and that that's why he was such easy pickings for Pacquiao. Or that that's why he's excruciating to watch. It's bull-shit at least half the time.
I can see your point regarding talent and greatness. But I also think that factors like level of competition and commitment to the sport have to be taken into account as well. If a guy who's won all of his fights steps up his competition and loses, is he suddenly past his prime? Or what if he's up against a style he simply can't deal with. Does that mean he's past his prime. And finally, what if a fighter doesn't put enough time in at the gym. Is that the end of his prime?
As i said above, i think this is why we differentiate between greatness and peak talent. Greatness is based on what you get done, talent is opinion based on what you see when you watch the tapes. Is Holyfield greater than Tyson? Yes, that's indisputable. Would Holyfield beat a peak Tyson? We can have a discussion about that. Mosley is clearly greater than Curry, IMO, he's gotten got more done. Would Mosley beat a peak Curry? I would bet strongly against it.
But you're leaving out plenty of other factors, such how a fighter can have diminished/diminishing physical abilities, but learn how to compensate for that (like perhaps, picking their shots better and sitting down more on their punches, whatever)...something that doesn't always come over night, or with the same trainer.
Wow. Double is ESPECIALLY obsessed with disparaging Curry these days. It's amazing how he gets fixated on some fighters and does his best to make them look worse than they really were or better than they really were. And, of course, all of this is done with his glaring lack of knowledge or any sense of chronological or historical perspective. But then...who needs that now that we have BoxRec!
That's fair. So you're saying a fighter can be past his prime physically but by adjusting his style, or taking a different approach, he can still have success (and not be in his prime).
Well I won't lie. Curry certaintly inspired this thread. The guy loses one fight and suddenly he's past his prime and no longer the fighter he had been. Forget the possibility that he just couldn't deal with Honeyghan's strength and pressure and that he wasn't nearly as good as people thought he was following his win over McCrory who clearly turned out to be over-rated in retrospect. What disturbs me particularly when it comes to Curry is the suddeness with which his "prime" allegedly ended. He loses a fight. And suddenly his prime is over and he's not half the fighter he used to be. So his losses to McCallum and every other guy worth a dayum that he subsequently lost to don't mean a thing because he was past his prime and not the brilliant Curry who knocked out the great McCrory in two rounds.
Careful....you're making too much sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realized that some fighters have longer peaks than others.
Right. Honeyghan...who was totally massacred by the likes of Starling and Breland...was obviously better than Curry at 147 and would beat him no matter what. :doh: It's amazing where you are willing to go in order to continue an arguement that is just you trying to be opposite just for the Hell of it yet again. Curry lost a title fight to friggin Rene Jacquot at 154 and looked like dogshit in the process. That should tell you all you need to know. Or are you now going to say that Jaqcuot is underrated and better than anyone that Curry beat? And NOBODY is calling McCrory great. But he was a talented co-champion at Welter who was fully expected to extend Curry and possibly get the win. And Curry's demolition of McCrory WAS impressive by any objective standard. It wasn't a lucky punch or that McCrory just got caught as you have inaccurately tried to claim in the MM discussion.
This might be one of most silly things you've ever had to say. DLH went on to have plenty of success after unseating Chavez at 140. He actually had more significant fights and more significant wins at 147 and above than he had at 140 and below. There is no legit comparision to be drawn between Curry and DLH outisde of they both held titles at 147 and eventually moved up.
I really wasn't drawing a parallell except to point out that ODH's last fight in which he completely dominated what was perceived to be a threatening opponent was the first Chavez fight. Following that fight, he went tooth and nail, even in victory. I'm repeating myself because I asked you the same question in MM, but how "do" you account for Curry's suddenly hitting a wall and becoming a shell of himself. What is the generally accepted reason for his down-fall?
PRIOR to the Fight, There was NOfuckingREASON to Believe that Honeyghan had ANY Chance of BEATING Curry, Doub...It's NOT like he was Some Loooooooooooong AVOIDED Welter that TRAPPED Curry in a Corner or Something... N Fact, Curry was All but SET to CHALLENGE Marvin Hagler (a Fight Curry Would have LOST in REED's Opinion) @ 160, Since they were Both Regarded as 1 or 2 Lb for Lb by MOst...But Curry Made the MISTAKE of Taking On Sugar Ray Leonard & Leonard's Advisor (Mike Trainer), who ENCOURAGED him to REMAIN @ Welter & Fight a Non-Descript Welter Named Lloyd Honeyghan... Even Though Curry had Been STRUGGLING to Make that Weight for @ LEAST 1 1/2 to 2 YEARS PRIOR... REED:mj:
If you have a brief prime then generally your standing as a fighter will suffer for it. Curry may be the favorite in mythical matchups against certain fighters (DLH, Mosley) but won't get ranked higher on very many all-time lists. Curry losing merely because of an increase in opposition is bullshit though. Starling was definitely better than Honeyghan.
George Foreman was definitely past his prime when he made his comeback and won the title again. The defining factor? Not prime, but monstruos heavy fists that could knock anyone cold regardless if he threw punches at snail speed!
The worst case of "prime" subjectivity is ALI/CLAY. aLI IS CONSIDERED pre-prime when Doug Jones beat him and was robbed. He then magically went into his prime a year later and beat Sonny Liston. Then, none of his loses really count because he was not allowed to fight and then went out of his prime and so none of those losses count. Funny, that Tyson's prison sentence is not thought as a valid excuse for his decline and that the"Bastard Maker" would always have beaten him even though that Mike Tyson was probably 70% of the prime Tyson. Ali who had access to world class gyms, trainers, sparring partners and his ability not to fight means his true prime was wasted. The Ali myth is one of the most delusional in boxing. Again, I am not saying he was a bum but some of the books/articles written on Ali should rightly be labeled fiction.
Do U REALLY Wanna RE-Visit that Messageboard ASSWHIPPING REED Gave U, Regarding this Topic???:dunno:...It's YOUR Funeral... Ali DIDN'T Lose to Doug Jones, Doug Jones WAS NOT "Robbed" & Ali's PRIME was DURING or just AFTER the Liston Fight & his Title Defenses...Ali was WHAT, 22-23 when he Beat Liston???...For a Guy w/Ali's Style, he DEFINITELY had BETTER Fighting Years AHEAD of Him, Unfortunately, he was BANNED from Boxing for 3 Years & Did VERY LITTLE "Training" During that Stretch... REED KNOWS your SCHTICK is SHITS & GIGGLES, but the Ali-Jones Thing has Been BEATEN Like a Dead Horse...But if YOU INSIST on CONTINUING to Call that Fight a "Robbery" (Despite ADMITTING that it was "Closer" than YOU REMEMBERED the Last Time we Went Thru This), then So B It.... REED:boohoo:
As always, I invite you to research the question. There are many people at the time that that think Jones one the fight. I am not being shocking or funny. I simply am speaking from my opinion after seeing the fight and reading opinions on the fight. There were guest on Espn Ringside that called the fight a outrageous robbery. Again, never have I waivered on this issue. Cassius Clay lost to Doug Jones and I will never state or believe otherwise.
I don't really agree on Ali, but i think the Tyson point is valid. Mike never looked the same after getting out of prison. He had one impressive victory winning an alphabet title against a guy he already defeated many years earlier. Before fighting Evander Tyson fought a combined total of 7 rounds in his previous fights. The oddsmakers made Tyson a massive favorite but that was based upon Tyson's reputation and Holyfield's recent inconsistency at the time. Mike stuggled mightily with Francois Botha after that. Tyson's post prison career was garbage.
