When we talk about a fighter, and his atg position....

[MELLY-MEL...]

should we include his prime, and unprime years? or just focus on his greatness during his prime? thoughts.

[larryx]

well if he wasnt great by him unprime years he'll never be great

[ßringer]

The entire career. Slack will be given in certain scenarios (like Ali losing to Berbick, Robinson's late losses, etc...) depending upon the fighter's age and condition at the time of a fight.

It needs to be this way because determining a fighter's "prime" is so hard to nail down these days when you've got guys like Hopkins rewriting the book on what a prime even is, hell Glenn Johnson too.

[ßringer]

And that's not even mentioning the kids who peak extremely early only to tank out a few years later.

[MELLY-MEL...]

well if he wasnt great by him unprime years he'll never be great

well unprime is prior to, as well as after his prime!

[ßringer]

I voted for both, though if it were multiple choice my next choice was obviously "Mel is the king".

[larryx]

well unprime is prior to, as well as after his prime!

mel you know what i mean..lol

[daggum]

i think we should just look at his record. say if he's 45-0. i think we should ignore the fact he cherry picked opponents and fought in a weak division for an unrecognized belt for most of his career. he still is 45-0 UNDEFEATED ATG.

[MELLY-MEL...]

I voted for both, though if it were multiple choice my next choice was obviously "Mel is the king".

thanks my brother. i appreciate that!

[Thread Stealer]

Everything, but obviously, losing at the end of your career when you're washed up doesn't take much at all from a guy's legacy. That's the norm in boxing, for a great to fight on too long until he's a shell of what he once was.