Is it difficult to make an accurate assessment with prime vs prime?

[mojack]

The reason being is that when people say who they think who would win 'prime vs prime' e.g. Ali vs Lewis, is it much more difficult than we think?

A prime Lennox Lewis is relative to what? the boxers around at that time. You could say the same about Ali. It's difficult to assess because their status is relative to the fighters who they have faught during that period, if they came 10 years later or earlier would they have had the same success?

Has boxing become much more competive since then? do boxers pay more attention to nutrition, training and benefit from science with a better understanding of the human body than they did 30-40 years ago?

This opens a different way of thinking about "The Greatest" boxers, do you think boxers that have gone unnoticed may have been "The Greatest" if they arrived 10 years later or earlier?

[the_godslayer]

The season being is that when people say who they think who would win 'prime vs prime' e.g. Ali vs Lewis, is it much more difficult than we think?

A prime Lennox Lewis is relative to what? the boxers around at that time. You could say the same about Ali. It's difficult to assess because there status is relative to the fighters who they have faught during their period, if they came 10 years later or earlier would they have had the same success?

Has boxing become much more competive since then? do boxers pay more attention to nutrition, training and benefit from science with a better understanding of the human body than they did 30 years ago?

This opens a different way of thinking about "The Greatest" boxers, do you think boxers that that have gone unnoticed may have been "The Greatest" if they arrived 10 years later or earlier?

This is a really good post mate and the highlighted area, for me, is the key, its a very subjective arguement the prime for prime one and one that can never truly be answered.

[sparked_85]

In the heavyweights especially I think out of the ring factors are ignored. When discussing 'primes' etc

Are the heavyweights really that bad today or are they all just boring ****s?

Also fighters like Bernard Hopkins seemingly have no prime. Or argument can be made he would have kicked his own arse post prime.

[MELLY-MEL...]

good post mo! enjoyed it, and you have alot of good points man. it is difficult to make assesments of fighters from different eras.

[mojack]

This is a really good post mate and the highlighted area, for me, is the key, its a very subjective arguement the prime for prime one and one that can never truly be answered.

What I think people don't understand is the whole "relative" theory. This is the most important part. How good really was Ali? relative to the people who he faught, what is it relative too? if they're all average boxers amongst each other it makes him look great.

Would Ali have lasted 1 round with Lewis?...or vice versa? because we don't fully understand the quality of the all the fighters collectively at that time.

Somebody at that time has to be "a world champion"...somebody, anybody because it's all relative what? the quality of the fighters at that time.

[El Jesus]

it can be, depending on the styles and how they looked when they faced that style. Think Edwin Rosario, think about his chances against say Zab Judah and think about his chances against a guy like Cotto, if you dont know how he fared in certain fights, you cant make that assessment. often times with these arguments you get people who have never really seen alot of these guys careers when it comes to certain styles, so you get comparisons that are dead wrong.

[the_godslayer]

The "relativity" is indeed the key, a case in point was Rocky Marciano .... retired 49 and 0. Does that make him the best heavyweight to ever walk the earth .... answer NO!!!! it makes him the best of his era, the great likelihood is that a good number of the more recent HW champs who are much bigger and more powerful nowadays (ie Tyson, Lewis et al) would or could have beaten him. Again, because we say that they could have beaten Marciano, does that make them the GOAT, again ... NO.
Relativity and subjectivity is the key, makes for great debate though.

[Silencers]

It is definitely difficult to assess a fantasy matchup between fighters from the past and fights from the present, all we can do is make educated guesses but that's all they are, guesses.

[eazy_mas]

there is no such thing as prime vs prime/

Because boxing is like any other sport but the problem it only done few time per year.

so the you cant tell when the person is at his prime example Roberto Duran was his prime when he won Moore, or stood toe2toe against Hagler or won Ian Barkely or giving SRL his first loss?

boxing is like any other sport but the problem is you got only one night to prove it and if that night is your bad night then you get screwed

[mojack]

The "relativity" is indeed the key, a case in point was Rocky Marciano .... retired 49 and 0. Does that make him the best heavyweight to ever walk the earth .... answer NO!!!! it makes him the best of his era, the great likelihood is that a good number of the more recent HW champs who are much bigger and more powerful nowadays (ie Tyson, Lewis et al) would or could have beaten him. Again, because we say that they could have beaten Marciano, does that make them the GOAT, again ... NO.
Relativity and subjectivity is the key, makes for great debate though.

Yes....

I will officially name it the The Relative Subjective Dependence Theory.
- A boxer's quality status in "relation to" or "connection with" or "necessary dependence on" other boxers.