Bernard Hopkins? 96-01? Marvin Hagler? 79-83? Joe Calzaghe? Evander Holyfield? Feel free to name others and the time frame of their primes.
there's no such thing as a prime imo. mental state has a lot to do with it as well. plus, some guys just win based on their experience. mayweather might be physically past his prime, but i'm sure he's wiser than he was when he was at 130. eh, maybe mayweather's a bad example, but you know what i mean.
Mike Tyson's prime was at 11:34 PM on June 27, 1988. Before that, he didn't quite master all his skills, and after that it was a slow slide, that left to Buster Douglas fiasco.
opcorn: No. Tyson was definitely at his best BEFORE the Spinks fight. Tyson against Berbick, Biggs, and Holmes was DEFINITELY the best of Tyson. But after the Spinks fight, when he fired Rooney, his skills started to diminish. Mainly because I think he got too arrogant, and he believed he could overpower everyone, and load up on shots.
Tyson couldn't beat people because he wasn't at the ABSOLUTE best day of his life.......do you guys actually read what you type?
There is a difference between being in your prime and being at your absolute peak. I think people are mistaking the two. For example Tyson was still in his prime when he lost to Douglas. It was an off night against an opponent he expected to walk over and didn't train hard for. Don't take that away from Buster Doulgas though. He fought a great fight and knocked Mike out. Do I think Tyson would have beat him in a rematch? Yes. The reason is Tyson was still in his prime, and was the better fighter. On the other hand, Tyson would have lost in a rematch to Danny Williams. Two different stories. It still doesn't change what happened in the first fight with Douglas though. Having a bad night or not being focused, does not remove someone from their "prime". Fans like to think of it that way as it provides a comforting excuse for their guy losing.
Hopkins seems to be 'prime'....'past prime'...'prime again'....'past prime'....'shot' when Jermaine took his titles,.. 'prime, but,....could be unprime at any given moment' , ... aww he's shot but brilliant,..Jermaine aint beatin' da young beast who got smacked to the floor twice by an utter Ecuadorian bum.
EGG-Zactly!!! Much too often, a fighter's "prime" is used as an excuse for a loss by fans of that fighter. Tyson was in his prime all the way to the Ruddock fights.
You DID mention Tyson's prime being until the Ruddock fights...which I do agree with. But what I was mostly agreeing with in Whiskey's post was that some folks use a fighter's prime as a convenient excuse for a loss. Tyson is a good example of that. It is nice to see a Tyson fan who DOESN'T try to make Tyson's prime conveniently end prior to the Douglas fight.
Maybe because that's just the truth, his prime really was before the Douglas fight and a real Tyson fan should know that.
It's not the truth...it's a convenient excuse some Tyson fans like to use to explain away the loss to Douglas.
Yep, he would have blasted Douglas away and didn't lose until a few years later revisionists would be claiming his prime was from 86-93.
Kostya Tszyu: 1996-2002 Muhammad Ali: 1964-1967 Sugar Ray Leonard: 1979-1982 Roy Jones: 1994-2001 (?)
His loss to Douglas doesn't need to be explained away....it's obvious that he didn't take Douglas too seriously (clubbing in japan with his new perm and not training hard enough etc). Even the Tyson of the two Ruddock fights, FOLLOWING the Douglas fight, would have knocked out Douglas. Tyson paid the price for overconfidence and arrogance... But it's WRONG of Tyson fans to say that Mike was past prime. He wasn't. He was only past prime after coming out of jail.
2001's about Right, N REED's Opinion... N 2000, Roy Fought Telesco, Hall & Harding...The Harding Fight was DREADFUL...1 of THE Worst PPV Main Events REED has Ever Seen, but Being that it was Roy, REED Cut him some SLACK & just KNEW that "ROY" would Resurface in his Next Fight... HISTORICALLY, Roy Jones STACKED Impressive Performances 1 After the Other...& on the RARE Ocassion he was LESS than Spectacular, it was a GIVEN that Roy would SHINE in his Follow-Up Outing... After Harding, Roy Fought Derrick Harmon N his 1st Fight of 2001...& though he was DOMINANT, it WASN'T the JAWDropping Performance that EVERYBODY Expected of Roy... & Even REED CAN'T Pretend that Harmon was ANYTHING Special... That was the 1st Time REED SAW some Slippage N Roy Jones...Or U Could ARGUE that the Harding Fight was... Roy Had AWESOME Performances AFTER the Harmon Bout, but that's the 1st Time REED could TELL he was SLIPPING a Bit... SPOT-ON w/1994 Signifying the START of Roy's PRIME... REED
Douglass was a known quitter, so it is very possible Tyson could have knocked him out if he fought him at another time, but Douglass didn't care about anything except winning that night, BUT that shows that Tyson could have been beat during his prime with a good jab and combonations put together.....so it really means go back to comic books if you want a superhero that can't lose
