Time to re-evaluate a boxers prime

I noticed there is this outdated mentally in boxing that boxers hit a certain age and are labelled as past their prime, or considered a shot fighter. The term is thrown around much too loosely. As all athletes have evolved over the past few decades many sports acknowledge that star athletes can remain in their primes for much longer than we give them credit for. Because as the sports involve so do their athletes. This is particularly true for any of the upper echelon of athletes that compete in their respective sports, take for example Michael Jordon, Jerry Rice, or Pete Sampras and more recently Brett Favre. All are ahtletes who dominated their sports after they had passed their supposed primes. Now what I don’t understand is why boxing has not been able to change this old adage that when a fighter hits a certain age that he is no longer at the top of his game, even though we are seeing more and more examples every year of fighters who are almost as great, and in some cases greater than they were in their younger days. I believe because boxing has so much history we have this reflex reaction to compare anything and everything with older eras. What we don’t take into account is things like nutrition, medicine, training methods, technology, and all the modern day advancements that allow boxer’s to train and fight harder, longer, and faster. Science has already documented that modern day human beings live longer than our predecessors. So, logic would dictate that the prime of an athlete’s life would be that much longer as well. In addition to the regular rigors of a boxers life, fighters from previous era’s fought more frequently, had inferior equipment (ie. Boxing gloves), archaic training methods, inferior nutrition, and less advanced medicine than those today. So the reality of the situation is, fighters of ALL previous eras hit their prime at a much younger age and could only sustain being in their prime for a shorter period of time. My argument is that fighters of today’s generation hit their prime’s at all different stages and with proper lifestyle stay in their prime or close to it for a much longer period of time. Shane Mosley, Bernard Hopkins, Vitali Klitschko, and Juan Manual Marquez are all active fighters who may not quite be in the peak of their primes but are fairly close to it. But conversely I realize a fighter like Ricky Hatton, whose lifestyle out of the ring has taken a toll on his body, may never be a top ten fighter again. Marco Antonio Barrera has taken far to much punishment to be considered even close to his prime. Others like Roy Jones relied far to much on athleticism and reflexes his prime provided him, is now a shot fighter. Pacquiao, and even Hopkins, are fighters that didn’t reach their prime until much later in their careers; with Pac currently being at his peak with no indication of slowing down. So I think it might be time we stop labelling fighters as being past their prime or shot fighters simply based on their age and a few tough losses post peak (ie. Mosley vs. Cotto). Some fighters who continue to train hard, have a clean lifestyle between fights, and do not take excessive punishment in the ring, remain in their prime or close to it, for longer than we care to believe. Even Michael Jordon had off nights in an 82 game season and Ali was in jail for the supposed prime years of his career. Its time to broaden our definition of what a boxer’s prime is. 40 might be the new 30. So what factors do you consider show a fighter is past their prime or shot? Is 40 the new 30?