Tweet
Originally posted by ModernTalking
View Post
-
Nothing gets by you... -
you're absolutely right...damn a past prime/shot pacquiao beating up p4p'ers like barrera!! that's pretty amazing...Originally posted by ModernTalking View PostComment
-
Yea looks like you ran out of what to say huh lol.Originally posted by CHOWWOKKA View PostLast edited by ModernTalking; 12-27-2011, 03:40 PM.Comment
-
The thing about a prime example is one really doesn't know until all the hands are played. Losing has nothing to do with it, because guys can get better after loses and the rate of a fighter declines is not a constant so a guy can still be better than everyone for a long time even if they are no longer at their best.
Is the guy getting better, or is the guy getting worse. IF a guy is declining there is no real going back but that doesn't mean they are totally washed up but that day could come at any time for a declining guy and the fall could be sudden. Each case is separate and different, painting with a broad brush in boxing is one of the biggest rookie mistakes.Comment
-
I thought you got you message. Here I'll reiterate, Pacquiao sucks and he fights people past their prime.Originally posted by ModernTalking View PostComment
-
Not according to alot of BS posters here especially Chowwokka, if you lose than you're out of your prime and you definitely suck LOL.Originally posted by The Gambler1981 View PostComment
-
-
Once you lose to Manny Pacquiao.Comment
-
Past-prime to me would simply mean they have already reached the apex of their abilities and certain things are visibly on the decline. Depending on a boxer's style this can be a very had thing to determine. A fighter can still be world-class but also be past-prime (60's Ali was prime, but 70's Ali was still a world-class boxer even though he was past prime.)
A fighter like B-Hop is very hard to judge when he was prime and past-prime because his style was so suited for longevity, at 46 the guy is clearly past it yet still goes out and wins a world title. The same applies to Antonio Tarver and Morales going and winning titles this past year. Guys who are long past prime can still get it done.
I would say both Pacquiao and Mayweather are both visibly past-prime, Pacquiao more-so than Mayweather because his style is slightly more dependent on physical attributes than defense and ring intelligence. Both are still world-class boxers yet also past-prime.
Defeating a fighter at the apex of their abilities is the best win you can have, but any point before or after can still be a very good win on your resume. Beating shot fighters or nearly shot fighters are however not good wins. Names on a resume but people will not ever consider it a good win (Pac over Mosley, Lebedev over RJJ, Berbick over Ali, anybody who beats Evander nowadays, etc...)
That is my best explanation, a good average age for "prime" I would consider to be about 27 or 28.Comment
-
All depends on how and why a guy lost, a loss can be a good indicator but not all loses are equal as some guys do get better after a loss.Originally posted by ModernTalking View Post
A guy can be at his absolute best and lose but come back and get some good wins despite not being quite as good as the night he lost.
Prime isn't a long term thing you hit it and it is gone but there is still a long path from being past the best you could be to washed up.Comment
Comment