Why is this mythical prime so important?

[shynequasiog22]

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.

[Arka]

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 ******ity.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

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.

[.Mik.]

I hope you are very young.
Archive that post,so that years later you can laugh at your own ******ity.

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.

[S.G.]

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

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[.Mik.]

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 ****. 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?

[Arka]

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?

[.Mik.]

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.

[S.G.]

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 ****. 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