Why is this mythical prime so important?

[.Mik.]

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.

[dans]

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.

Well said.

[CounterPuncher]

It is very rare, and has almost never actually happened that you get two all time greats fighter in each when they are roughly in their peak years and comfortable with their weight.

They say Ali's peak was the night he fought Cleveland Williams, but Williams was a shot fighter at that point.

[daggum]

holmes is better than ali obviously and camacho knocked the **** out of sugar ray leonard proving he was better. that is what you are saying right idiot?

[mspiegelo]

it does make things hard to gauge. thats why marquez-vasquez is such a beautiful match up. two young studs on the lb 4 lb list giving it their all while their in their peaks. after the 4th fight, they most likely will be on the downslide from their primes after giving the world so much of their souls! what beautiful fighters and fights!

[.Mik.]

holmes is better than ali obviously and camacho knocked the **** out of sugar ray leonard proving he was better. that is what you are saying right idiot?

No actually, considering I specifically addressed that particular point within my post. There is a great difference between losing when you are past your peak and having people always defend your abilities by stating your prime. Like I said at the end of my post, if most of your fans make reference to your 'prime' in every discussion of your greatness, all that becomes obvious is the fact that you boxed for too long. Is this not the case with Ali? With Leonard? With Roy Jones?

In future, I'd suggest that you try actually reading an entire post before furiously typing out an ill-judged virtually ******ed response. Perhaps that way you'd come across looking intelligent or measured rather than angry and ******.

[Benny Leonard]

It is very rare, and has almost never actually happened that you get two all time greats fighter in each when they are roughly in their peak years and comfortable with their weight.

They say Ali's peak was the night he fought Cleveland Williams, but Williams was a shot fighter at that point.

For Ali, it was more about where he was at that point in time when he fought Williams...it didn't matter Williams was his opponent. Ali was physically maturing into a full-grown-prime Fighter all while keeping his overall ability that won him the title. When he came back after the long layoff, his body was thick, but he no longer had the stamina, lost some speed, and couldn't dance. He said this himself in an interview as to why he had to start using the ropes.

It can be said, that Ali's prime was taken away from him. Tyson blew what should have been his prime if we base it on athletes in this sport that start to really put it together by 25-29 as well as what was said about how he kept improving in the gym.


You have Prime; You have Peak; and You have the rest.

[Benny Leonard]

I think we can sometimes be lucky to see Two Prime fighters going at it: Bowe vs. Holyfield I was that fight; they both were at their peak. Part II was Prime fighters since they were still good, but they were starting to fall apart. Part III, past prime.

[Benny Leonard]

No actually, considering I specifically addressed that particular point within my post. There is a great difference between losing when you are past your peak and having people always defend your abilities by stating your prime. Like I said at the end of my post, if most of your fans make reference to your 'prime' in every discussion of your greatness, all that becomes obvious is the fact that you boxed for too long. Is this not the case with Ali? With Leonard? With Roy Jones?

In future, I'd suggest that you try actually reading an entire post before furiously typing out an ill-judged virtually ******ed response. Perhaps that way you'd come across looking intelligent or measured rather than angry and ******.

Ali before his forced layoff

Tyson with Rooney

Jones Jr. prior to moving up to Heavyweight; even though I thought he was on the decline.

Ray Robinson when he peaked at 128-1

Benny Leonard when he first retired

Joe Louis before the War

and so on...

It seems the fighters most talked about with this would be Ali and Tyson.



I don't know how anyone can be convinced any are "unbeatable" in their "prime," but you can make an argument as to why they would be favored.


Many fighters have to continue to fight. Ali had no money so he had to come back unless he wanted to pump gas.

Tyson was young and trying to get his life back together...and then after that, he was financially ruined and had to continue on.


I do hear you: Lewis kept it together like Pete Sampras...and he knew when to get out. They were smart with their money as well...I hope.

The rest, they continue to fight on until there is nothing left. This may have to do with being a "fighter." They are taught from young kids to never give up and give it everything you have until there is no more left.

[.Mik.]

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 **** 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.