Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[Hawkins]

Basically I agree with all of what you said besides what the word "prime" means to you. To me it's not when your physically at your best but when your at your best. lol Being in the wrong frame of mind or distracted for any reason is not what I consider being at your best. It can be for both reasons why someone is out of their prime, old or mentally not there. IMO I think most would agree that Tyson was at his best when he was with Keven Rooney.

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

[Hawkins]

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

I just don't follow that logic. For one, just because a fighter isn't in the right frame of mind has little to do with physical prime. Mike was 24, or there about, when Douglas beat him. He was clearly in his prime. Does that mean he was at his best? No, because he was lazy towards Douglas, regardless of the reasons he was lazy. Thus he got defeated.

But to say because he wasn't in the right mindframe his prime was past isn't an accurate depiction. Like I said, if its the case, then lots of fighters weren't in their primes for one or two fights.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

I just don't follow that logic. For one, just because a fighter isn't in the right frame of mind has little to do with physical prime.

Yeah, but we're talking about "prime" not "Physical prime". If you agree boxing is just as important mentally than physically, then why would you judge a fighter based on a physical standpoint? Looking at something in just one way doesn't work when evaluating a human being. We have brains too you know. lol

Mike was 24, or there about, when Douglas beat him. He was clearly in his prime. Does that mean he was at his best? No, because he was lazy towards Douglas, regardless of the reasons he was lazy. Thus he got defeated.

I can't argue he wasn't in his "physical prime" but I will argue he was in his "prime".

But to say because he wasn't in the right mindframe his prime was past isn't an accurate depiction.

No, I said it was because he wasn't with Rooney anymore, to keep it short. Without going into the same discussion again, there were a lot of negative things that transpired in Tysons life since the Spinks fight. A fighter doesn't have to dwindle physically to say he's not in his prime anymore. It can happen mentally but most of the time it's physically. Comparing Tyson to the average fighter will never work.

[Hawkins]

No, I said it was because he wasn't with Rooney anymore, to keep it short. Without going into the same discussion again, there were a lot of negative things that transpired in Tysons life since the Spinks fight. A fighter doesn't have to dwindle physically to say he's not in his prime anymore. It can happen mentally but most of the time it's physically. Comparing Tyson to the average fighter will never work.

Maybe I've just been burning the candle at both ends too much lately to comprehend your point. However you never answered my question :

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?

[them_apples]

Prime means a place in time when a fighter does best.

example: Lennox Lewis did better when he got older, he even said so himself "fine wine".

[Jim Jeffries]

Prime means a place in time when a fighter does best.

example: Lennox Lewis did better when he got older, he even said so himself "fine wine".

Well I reckon Emanuel Steward had a lot to do with that. At the end though, against Vitali, you have to admit he was going downhill.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

However you never answered my question :

I thought I did. Look above your post, I wrote this:

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

Sorry, I just couldn't answer that type of question with a yes or no. lol

[Jim Jeffries]

I thought I did. Look above your post, I wrote this:

Sorry, I just couldn't answer that type of question with a yes or no. lol

A fighter's prime should be longer than 1 year to be considered any type of great, would you agree?

[Hawkins]

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

Buster Douglas used the weakness he displayed in every other fight, put it together and knocked him out. I'm sorry, but truthfully, what you are saying seems just like another excuse. Don't use the Douglas fight because he wasn't in his prime? I don't see the logic. Sorry.

However what you are alleging is that althought Tyson was in his physical prime, but because he wasn't in the game mentally, it shouldn't be counted as a prime loss?

So because Lennox Lewis got knocked out by Rahman, because his mind wasn't in it as he himself stated, he was out of his prime? Yet, the very next fight, when his mind was in the fight and he won, he was in his prime again?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but what you're saying equates to the above equation.