Why is this mythical prime so important?

You're acting like I'm disagreeing with you. When judging someones career you need to take into account their whole career as well as their best bits. Note that I'm not saying that you take into account their whole career INSTEAD OF their best bits. But if you're going to take their prime, then you need to look at their fighting out of their prime, and how long their prime lasted and what they did after it and to who. Its not as simple a matter as saying "Prime for Prime, so and so would've won" because that is completely unmeasurable and all it does is stagnate debates. I dont see WHY its a greater measure of someone's career than their results and performances over their entire career. I dont know why 'prime' gets held up as a shining beacon when the overall record gets cast aside. To me the hardest thing about boxing is getting to the top, then when you get there you realise that in actuality the hardest thing about boxing is staying at the top. Dont look at the concept of 'legacy' then if thats giving you trouble. Look at the concept of 'career', because that doesnt just involve the parts you want it to involve. The point I'm trying to make is that the notion of "legacy" is just as artificial or natural as the notion of "prime".How can we say that a legacy,which ,superficially being a list of names on a sheet of paper,is more objective than "prime",which may possibly be correlated with physical states,which we simply don't and can't measure,such as speed of reflexes,aerobic fitness,chemical imbalances in the brain etc etc. I'd say it is difficult to agree upon a definition of the above terms.But from the standard usage,I would think that "prime" and "legacy" are functions of each other.

Its not like Roy's longevity is terrible dude. He beat BHop to win his first world title in 1993 and didn't lose (barring the Griffin DQ) until Tarver in 04. That is 11 years in which he won titles from 160 right through to HW including beating the man and a p4p fighter in Toney by an easy UD and pretty much cleaning out 175. And up until the last couple of years I think to say that "there isn't loads of difference" between the level of competition the two faced in just downright laughable to be honest. Between 93 and 04 Roy fought the following names: Bernard Hopkins James Toney Mike McCallum Montell Griffin Virgil Hill Lou del Valle Reggie Johnson Richard Hall Eric Harding Derick Harmon JC Gonzalez Clinton Woods John Ruiz Antonio Tarver That is a fairly impressive list of names right there. Up until his unification fight against Kessler I think Joe was a long, long, long way off that type of resume to be 100% honest with you. Roy has faced better competition I shan't argue that, I just don't think it's quite to the extent often made out. But he did face a good amount of certainly B-C level fighters too, as I said. I never said Roy had terrible longevity either. But it's clear he has decline more post 35 then Calzaghe has and will. How much of that is the weight? It's debatable what kind of fighter he'd be had he not gone upto HW. Having read about it and his comments in a boxing mag last month, he was saying his body has only really now stabilised. But why then did he beat Tarver after first coming down when you'd expect him to be worst? I think we just saw a good performance from him, but he had an awkward elusive target throwing at him non stop, so he couldn't really look that good in fairness. So things like this and prime is so difficult to truly gauge and assess. Look at Hopkins, he has a style like no other, so rather than losing the things he relies on like speed and reflexes for folk like Roy and Joe, he's using his attributes like defence, tactics and countering as good as anyone could. I think all those things from his game now, are better then they ever were. Anyways, I'm gona pull my finger out my ass and reply that damned pm, it's clear we have shit to cover. :bounce:

When he form an opinion on a fighter we watch the films of the fights,read up on their background and considered opinions of others.Finally we make our own mind up ,based on our understanding,experience and prejudices. What more do you want? Judging of an individuals merits is not something objective like the weighing of grocery,by reading off a few numbers on a scale.Record and results are the starting point to any considered opinion-not the final weighing and judgment. You're acting like I'm disagreeing with you. When judging someones career you need to take into account their whole career as well as their best bits. Note that I'm not saying that you take into account their whole career INSTEAD OF their best bits. But if you're going to take their prime, then you need to look at their fighting out of their prime, and how long their prime lasted and what they did after it and to who. Its not as simple a matter as saying "Prime for Prime, so and so would've won" because that is completely unmeasurable and all it does is stagnate debates. I dont see WHY its a greater measure of someone's career than their results and performances over their entire career. I dont know why 'prime' gets held up as a shining beacon when the overall record gets cast aside. To me the hardest thing about boxing is getting to the top, then when you get there you realise that in actuality the hardest thing about boxing is staying at the top. Dont look at the concept of 'legacy' then if thats giving you trouble. Look at the concept of 'career', because that doesnt just involve the parts you want it to involve.

Again, your reading skills appear to not exist. I did specifically claim that there was a difference between defending fighters for their 'prime' and acknowledging that some fighters simply fought too long. The arguing that you are making, contrary to whatever it appears that you think, is not one that I have argued against. Quite the opposite really, as I brought it up, accepted it and qualified it long before you even stepped into this thread. There are exceptions that prove the rule, like Ali's or Robinson's final fights and nobody will ever think that Calzaghe's victory of Jones or Lewis' over Tyson will ever be as credible as if they were to have happened while both were at their best. But its certainly a more convincing argument than a bunch of people talking about this mythical 'prime' as though it proves everything. Here is the fact. If you have to rely on your 'Prime' to define your legacy, then you simply boxed for far too long. I don't think it is a convincing argument-not to me.I don't know whether you really want an reply to your post.I think you're trying to make a stream of consciousness monologue here.Great fighters have lost to inferior opposition ,for many reasons, and not all to do with the age related decline of their skills from age or ring scars or even the quality of the opposition that night. I would think the concept of legacy is ultimately as mythical as the concept of prime,since we are dealing with complex and ever changing entities,such as human beings.Tyson was not the same man in 1991 as he was in 1987.Pryor was not the same man he was in 87 as he was in 84. When he form an opinion on a fighter we watch the films of the fights,read up on their background and considered opinions of others.Finally we make our own mind up ,based on our understanding,experience and prejudices. What more do you want? Judging of an individuals merits is not something objective like the weighing of grocery,by reading off a few numbers on a scale.Record and results are the starting point to any considered opinion-not the final weighing and judgment.

I'm not saying Joe faced better competition, but there isn't loads of difference. Roy fought his share of B-C level fighters too. He also didn't take too many batterings until late on. Don't forget Joe's taken some very hard shots to the face in a few fights. I agree Roy is understandable more past prime than Joe not just because of age but because of his weight variations, and reliance on speed and quick reflexes as two big factors. But then Calzaghe relies on these too. In terms of adapting to what you've got I think Calzaghe gets it, as he used to rely on power early on when he KO'd early almost always. When his hands couldn't take it he was forced to adapt and begin losing, and he adapted well into a guy whom rarely KO's and is a master of an unique un orthodox style, speed, combinations and stamina. I'm not taking anything away from Roy or anyone for that matter. But I do thik Mik raises some good points about judging boxers a little more than people often do, on the front of longevity. But yes, all must be factored in, in terms of why some have more of it, than others. Its not like Roy's longevity is terrible dude. He beat BHop to win his first world title in 1993 and didn't lose (barring the Griffin DQ) until Tarver in 04. That is 11 years in which he won titles from 160 right through to HW including beating the man and a p4p fighter in Toney by an easy UD and pretty much cleaning out 175. And up until the last couple of years I think to say that "there isn't loads of difference" between the level of competition the two faced in just downright laughable to be honest. Between 93 and 04 Roy fought the following names: Bernard Hopkins James Toney Mike McCallum Montell Griffin Virgil Hill Lou del Valle Reggie Johnson Richard Hall Eric Harding Derick Harmon JC Gonzalez Clinton Woods John Ruiz Antonio Tarver That is a fairly impressive list of names right there. Up until his unification fight against Kessler I think Joe was a long, long, long way off that type of resume to be 100% honest with you.

people are always going to twist things and use them to their advantage... i'm sure in a unbiased discussion with someone knowledgeable it wouldn't be such an issue it sounds like you've just let all the flaming and fanboyism on here get to you No. I just long for reasonable debates. You need to learn a lot about boxing. Any boxer that "quits while they are ahead" is fine by me, boxing is a brutal sport. But note that the word "quit" is in there which goes against the very basic essence of boxing. There is also another reason why the technically correct term for 'quitting while you're ahead' is called 'retiring' rather than 'quitting'. You ought to learn something about human nature and the way the world works.

It varies from fighter to fighter dude. In Roy's case, he is clearly barely a shell of his former self, his "prime" if you will. It swings both ways as well, you can talk about Calzaghe's resume which is no doubt impressive, but it is a lot easier to achieve longevity when you have been in against soft to very soft opposition for the majority of your career. I'm not saying Joe faced better competition, but there isn't loads of difference. Roy fought his share of B-C level fighters too. He also didn't take too many batterings until late on. Don't forget Joe's taken some very hard shots to the face in a few fights. I agree Roy is understandable more past prime than Joe not just because of age but because of his weight variations, and reliance on speed and quick reflexes as two big factors. But then Calzaghe relies on these too. In terms of adapting to what you've got I think Calzaghe gets it, as he used to rely on power early on when he KO'd early almost always. When his hands couldn't take it he was forced to adapt and begin losing, and he adapted well into a guy whom rarely KO's and is a master of an unique un orthodox style, speed, combinations and stamina. I'm not taking anything away from Roy or anyone for that matter. But I do thik Mik raises some good points about judging boxers a little more than people often do, on the front of longevity. But yes, all must be factored in, in terms of why some have more of it, than others.

Mik raises some good points. Personally I also think too much is made of prime, and it is but another thing that's largely opinion. Another would be p4p rankings, which too is made too much of, and talked about too much. There's definitely a valid point in that fighters should be rated more for their overall career performances over time, longevity is a big factor. If someone has a very short prime and is somehow the best only at that time, why can't they keep it going for awhile longer, age aside? A key mistake people make is just thinking a boxers prime is when they had their biggest wins, as they often do for Calzaghe. So for that people say around Lacy time. No, that was just in immense performance, styles make fights. He's always been capable of that. Also, as boxers age it's not all downhill as some like to make out. They also on the opposite end of the skill gain and get better usually, in terms of experience, boxing brain, resiliance, tactics, defence and some other skills improve with time. So factor that in and past prime often is blown out of proportion with varying diferent factors in a fighter being brough to the table as they age, both bad and good. It varies from fighter to fighter dude. In Roy's case, he is clearly barely a shell of his former self, his "prime" if you will. It swings both ways as well, you can talk about Calzaghe's resume which is no doubt impressive, but it is a lot easier to achieve longevity when you have been in against soft to very soft opposition for the majority of your career.

Mik raises some good points. Personally I also think too much is made of prime, and it is but another thing that's largely opinion. Another would be p4p rankings, which too is made too much of, and talked about too much. There's definitely a valid point in that fighters should be rated more for their overall career performances over time, longevity is a big factor. If someone has a very short prime and is somehow the best only at that time, why can't they keep it going for awhile longer, age aside? A key mistake people make is just thinking a boxers prime is when they had their biggest wins, as they often do for Calzaghe. So for that people say around Lacy time. No, that was just in immense performance, styles make fights. He's always been capable of that. Also, as boxers age it's not all downhill as some like to make out. They also on the opposite end of the skill gain and get better usually, in terms of experience, boxing brain, resiliance, tactics, defence and some other skills improve with time. So factor that in and past prime often is blown out of proportion with varying diferent factors in a fighter being brough to the table as they age, both bad and good.

Yes, it's like Women. When she is young, she is cute. As she starts to mature, she gets pretty...then adding in beauty and intelligence, she becomes beautiful. But then, and it really can slam women fast, once she gets around 35, if not years before that, she just is... There are some exceptions. What a load of tosh! A woman's beauty is ETERNAL....like a diamond.......:luvbed: http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/524.jpg

Exactly, and my question is why is one given so much more credibility than the others. Take a similar argument. Marlon Brando's highs were arguably the greatest we have ever seen from the acting world. He put in two or three acting performances that may never be matched for their skill and greatness. However, he also made a lot of shit. Someone like Paul Newman on the other hand, might never quite had reached the heights that Marlon Brando did. But he put in a hell of a lot more great performances and he maintained his great performances for a lot longer. Ultimately, the acting world will remember the two in a similar way. They'll remember Brando better because he did it first, but the difference between shining brighter and shining longer is nowhere near as distinct as it is in the boxing world. Why is that? people are always going to twist things and use them to their advantage... i'm sure in a unbiased discussion with someone knowledgeable it wouldn't be such an issue it sounds like you've just let all the flaming and fanboyism on here get to you

Sugar Ray Robinson lost to these fighters in the final four years of his career: Paul Pender, Phil Moyer Terry Downes Joey Giardello Mick Leahy, Memo Ayon, Stan Harrington Ferd Hernandez, Joey Archer Knowing that,when he finally retired,why was he still acclaimed by the Yanks as the greatest fighter ever to lace on a pair of gloves? Again, your reading skills appear to not exist. I did specifically claim that there was a difference between defending fighters for their 'prime' and acknowledging that some fighters simply fought too long. The arguing that you are making, contrary to whatever it appears that you think, is not one that I have argued against. Quite the opposite really, as I brought it up, accepted it and qualified it long before you even stepped into this thread.

What a horrendously ignorant response. You go ahead and look to your left and you will see my age, providing your blinkered view doesnt prevent you from doing that as well as accepting the truth in statements you dont agree with. Prime is important. Longevity is important. Rocky Marciano would quite simply not be remembered the way that he is if he fought for another 5 years losing a load and winning a few. Yes, he'd still be remembered fondly because he was exceptional during his prime, but your career does not simply consist of your prime. I cant see what you could possibly argue about in regards to that. Sugar Ray Robinson lost to these fighters in the final four years of his career: Paul Pender, Phil Moyer Terry Downes Joey Giardello Mick Leahy, Memo Ayon, Stan Harrington Ferd Hernandez, Joey Archer Knowing that,when he finally retired,why was he still acclaimed by the Yanks as the greatest fighter ever to lace on a pair of gloves?

it's just measuring fighters by the highest point in there career... the point where they were as close to reaching their full potential as they're ever gonna get looking at prime skill and looking at greatness/career are two totally different ways of measuring and comparing boxers Exactly, and my question is why is one given so much more credibility than the others. Take a similar argument. Marlon Brando's highs were arguably the greatest we have ever seen from the acting world. He put in two or three acting performances that may never be matched for their skill and greatness. However, he also made a lot of shit. Someone like Paul Newman on the other hand, might never quite had reached the heights that Marlon Brando did. But he put in a hell of a lot more great performances and he maintained his great performances for a lot longer. Ultimately, the acting world will remember the two in a similar way. They'll remember Brando better because he did it first, but the difference between shining brighter and shining longer is nowhere near as distinct as it is in the boxing world. Why is that?

it's just measuring fighters by the highest point in there career... the point where they were as close to reaching their full potential as they're ever gonna get looking at prime skill and looking at greatness/career are two totally different ways of measuring and comparing boxers Yes, it's like Women. When she is young, she is cute. As she starts to mature, she gets pretty...then adding in beauty and intelligence, she becomes beautiful. But then, and it really can slam women fast, once she gets around 35, if not years before that, she just is... There are some exceptions.

it's just measuring fighters by the highest point in there career... the point where they were as close to reaching their full potential as they're ever gonna get looking at prime skill and looking at greatness/career are two totally different ways of measuring and comparing boxers

I hope you are very young. Archive that post,so that years later you can laugh at your own stupidity. What a horrendously ignorant response. You go ahead and look to your left and you will see my age, providing your blinkered view doesnt prevent you from doing that as well as accepting the truth in statements you dont agree with. Prime is important. Longevity is important. Rocky Marciano would quite simply not be remembered the way that he is if he fought for another 5 years losing a load and winning a few. Yes, he'd still be remembered fondly because he was exceptional during his prime, but your career does not simply consist of your prime. I cant see what you could possibly argue about in regards to that.

I know what a prime is mate, and I know why people use it. Of course you want to talk about Tyson on his best day and Ali on his best day etc etc. But boxers simply dont ONLY fight on their best day. They generally fight for the best part of 15 years. So its a very fair point to argue that longevity is just as important as their 'prime' because it is an equally fair reflection of their career. Hell, the best prime for prime fighter in the world might be one that we never even heard of. He could've fought a fight where if he had fought anyone else in the history of his division he would've won...but that was only one fight and he went utterly shit after that. How would we even know? To me, being exceptional in your prime is important. But it is no less important than being able to win when you arent at your best and being able to maintain consistency and a high standard throughout your entire career. Naz at his best, was incredible, however he wont be remembered as fondly as he could've been because he didnt maintain longevity to his career. Jones at his best was incredible, but his best faded before others did, so why should he be held to being so superior because of it? Put it this way, everyone around here is saying "Jones would've beaten Calzaghe prime for prime" and that may well be true. But I could just as easily say that if they had fought against each other every year since each of them became champion, Calzaghe might well have won the most fights. Why should that be given so little credit? Afterall, you fight your whole career, not just for the best bits of it. Yes, in life, it doesn't matter. If you look at other things in Nature, you will see a once strong, brave, tough Lion get taken down eventually. One story that I watched showed how a Lion at the peak of his powers, ate something bad and was sick...the other Lions saw this and took advantage. He was beaten and left for the hyenas. They also showed a Monkey King who got taken down as well. When people use "prime" it is when a fighter is at his best and can overcome the little things. Everybody has fought injured and sick, even Ali and Tyson, but at their best, they overcame it because they had everything else together. However, when things fell apart, Ali being forced out of boxing, Tyson getting rid of Rooney, we saw that change and they were never the same. In life, we would say, that's the way it works, but "Fans" will refuse to believe that one fighter beat the other at his best; that want a "fair" fight. For longevity: Yes, I can agree on some part, but I always say, you have to look at the whole situation. Not everybody goes through the same TEST in life. One fighter might have it more "set," "easier," than another...so how do we judge? There is death to deal with, health problems, etc. Many athletes will point to their worth-ethic, genetics, family/friend support, the blessing that they were led on the right path, and of course, LUCK. This is also why people continue to discuss Napoleon Bonaparte and why he fell. At the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon was ill, and no longer the once Great General the World came to know. It still amazes people that he still almost won the battle despite the many problems he had to deal with: Weather, a young army, ill healthy, the odds, etc. It was the mistakes he made in the battle that could be argued he would not have made had he been at his best physically and mentally. But, you cannot deny the Greatness of Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

Surely longevity and consistency is what matters? All this talk of 'prime' does is make it hugely more difficult to estimate the importance of various results. Joe Calzaghe's victory was immediately discredited by HBO on Saturday by saying that this Roy Jones was a different matter to the Roy Jones of his 'prime'. Lots of fans find it necessary to talk about Tyson in his 'prime'. Its highly possible that on his best day, Tyson could've beaten anyone in the entire world, even on their best day. But he didnt always box when he was in his prime, so why is that so important? Prime dont mean as much as people seem to think because it invariably means nothing and inevitably forces people to profess their opinions as fact. Results mean everything. For the most part, those are what is remembered. People dont remember that Hopkins wasnt in his prime when RJJ dominated him, they just remember that it happened. There are exceptions that prove the rule, like Ali's or Robinson's final fights and nobody will ever think that Calzaghe's victory of Jones or Lewis' over Tyson will ever be as credible as if they were to have happened while both were at their best. But its certainly a more convincing argument than a bunch of people talking about this mythical 'prime' as though it proves everything. Here is the fact. If you have to rely on your 'Prime' to define your legacy, then you simply boxed for far too long. I hope you are very young. Archive that post,so that years later you can laugh at your own stupidity.

The big thing about a fighters prime is that in the future that is what they will be remembered for. Nobody is going to look at Jones career in 30 years and talk about his time after moving to heavyweight. When you look at Leonard people don't talk about his losses after he was shot, they look at his brilliant career up until then. A fighters prime is what they are remembered for, that's why people bring up the fighters prime.