Physical prime vs Boxing peak, don't equate them together

[kushking]

I constantly see more than anything else ppl confusing physical prime with career peak. Heres the difference imo:

A fighter oftentimes & possibly most often times is at his physical prime at a different time than hes at his peak performance in boxing.

The reasoning is simple,look at the average champions of today & look at the age when they accomplished the most compared with the age they were supposedly in their primes, you will see the 2 do not usually line up in pro boxing the majority of the time. In those instances fighters are actually scientifically considered supposedly well past prime in mid 30s,& yet todays fighters are still young in mid 30s & oftentimes still undefeated.

What do yall think?


Heres a few examples,ggg didn't fight anyone good & truly earn his 1st belt til mid 30s,Bud is on course to fight someone on his level by mid 30s,Canelo is now fighting champs & favored over champs that were considered a bridge too far when he was in his full prime as he's slightly past it but now is firing on all cylinders, Beterbieve was 35 when he beat gvoz,Loma is going on 32.

Despite all of this I constantly see fighters being considered washed up because they're mid 30s yet when those same fighters were in physical prime they were considered bums,

I would argue that fighters in mid 30s esp. undefeated ones should be the most prized scalps in boxing for a fighters mantle

[Tails]

They can be at different times but I believe for the most part they coincide with most boxers

Boxing prime. I believe the majority of fighters have a certain level of ceiling so to speak, that they hit and are not capable of raising it any higher.

Then there are some that continually push that ceiling higher and higher and develop the craftiness that is seen is established champions that have long title reigns.

As far as physical prime goes, I do believe most slow down at 30. Partly due to genetics and lack of respect for their body.

Some boxers carry their physical prime in later years because they know how to manage their injuries I believe. They give their body the proper rest and rehab needed.

[ELPacman]

I agree. I can use Pacquiao as my gauge since I've followed him Live since he was 24 years old. At 24 years old I would say Pacquiao was in his physical prime. The way he went 11 rounds nonstop against Barrera, like every minute of every round was astonishing.

Yet without a doubt, his years of probably 29-31 years old were his peak. That was him blitzing like David Diaz at 135lbs up to 147lbs ODLH, Ricky Hatton (140), Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley.

Everything since then has been mostly relying on boxing ability and less on power/explosive.

[hayZ]

Before Sports Science is what it is today, you were basically a boxer on the decline post 28 and it was a lot sharper than it is today. They also typically fought more too which leads to wear and tear.

Nowadays you probably decline a little later due to less wear and tear, better nutrition, much improved training regiment and more knowledge on recovery and better supplementation. You regularly see Boxers performing well in their early 30's.

Look at Pacquiao who was probably at his absolute best from DLH in late 2008 to Margarito late 2010 iirc. From 29-31 I think. You have still close to your physical peak but have more experience to pull off anything you would have been able to do.

[kushking]

Look at how Deryevchanko came up outta nowhere at age 34-35,look at Mayweather, Pacquiao,Foreman,Ggg,those guys were firing on all cylinders mid 30s they didn't have the ability to fire on earlier. I genuinely believe the best fighters perform better in their early to mid 30s these days because they get better when they are finally tested(which is later these days)I think Canelo despite being a prodigy on ppv from very young is better past 30 than ever also.

[Citizen Koba]

I constantly see more than anything else ppl confusing physical prime with career peak. Heres the difference imo:

A fighter oftentimes & possibly most often times is at his physical prime at a different time than hes at his peak performance in boxing.

The reasoning is simple,look at the average champions of today & look at the age when they accomplished the most compared with the age they were supposedly in their primes, you will see the 2 do not usually line up in pro boxing the majority of the time. In those instances fighters are actually scientifically considered supposedly well past prime in mid 30s,& yet todays fighters are still young in mid 30s & oftentimes still undefeated.

What do yall think?


Heres a few examples,ggg didn't fight anyone good & truly earn his 1st belt til mid 30s,Bud is on course to fight someone on his level by mid 30s,Canelo is now fighting champs & favored over champs that were considered a bridge too far when he was in his full prime as he's slightly past it but now is firing on all cylinders, Beterbieve was 35 when he beat gvoz,Loma is going on 32.

Despite all of this I constantly see fighters being considered washed up because they're mid 30s yet when those same fighters were in physical prime they were considered bums,

I would argue that fighters in mid 30s esp. undefeated ones should be the most prized scalps in boxing for a fighters mantle

Physically fighters are gonna be slowly declining after their late 20s maybe around 28 or so with the reflexes and response time deteriorating first. This however can be balanced - or even overcome to a degree - by the increased skill and ringcraft that comes with fight experience especially at the top level, so that in the medial weightclasses a boxer can still perform at top level in their early 30s despite a slight physical decline. Past a certain point though (nominally I'd say about 32 is normal, earlier for smaller guys, later for bigger ones) the greater ring IQ and experience can no longer compemnsate for the accelerating physical decline.

Some boxers may be able to prolong this with sports science and discipline... and the best can also adapt their styles to rely less on reflexes and more on experience but ultimately no boxer is really going to be better in their late 30s than they were at 30 or 32.

Course, yes, if you're the money guy and looking to build the most badass reputation possible that's what you're going for... dudes maybe just a little past their best but who are still racking up accomplishments and are yet to show serious decline. They're the one's gonna to be worth the most prestige and most likely to have developed a big enough fanbase to bring numbers to the PPV and put asses in seats. Less value in fighting guys before they really got famous or made their mark if you're the guy calling the shots.

[Zaryu]

Very good points and I agree with the premise. A good example is Hopkins, he seemed to peak boxing wise in his mid thirties, but he had physically slowed down from his mid twenties.

However, I don't agree with the example used for GGG. His physical prime and boxing peak were much closer together than what you see with the examples you're trying portray. Nothing wrong with that, but I guess some people have a hard time admitting GGG was avoided while he was at his peak.

[Real King Kong]

It doesn’t help that most fighters these days don’t fight top opposition until later. A boxers prime should be the intersection of peak physical ability and certain level experience. If guys are waiting longer to get that experience, they will have a later prime. In most cases, they would have been even better if they had that experience closer to or at their physical peak.

[Marchegiano]

Semantics

You can tell when people use prime to mean the prime of their career and their prime athleticism.

You're not wrong, it's similar to my own gripe about power and how we use adjectives to modify power instead of using the terms for modified power like force or torque, but, in both cases, the issue is semantics and based on colloquial uses fighting dictionary definitions...and so small, and insignificant.

Find thing to point out but I wouldn't ***** about it or educate the masses. Most of us know damn well "pushing power" is force, most of us know damn well "late prime" means the peak of a career was later in the boxer's life.

[LoadedWraps]

I constantly see more than anything else ppl confusing physical prime with career peak. Heres the difference imo:

A fighter oftentimes & possibly most often times is at his physical prime at a different time than hes at his peak performance in boxing.

The reasoning is simple,look at the average champions of today & look at the age when they accomplished the most compared with the age they were supposedly in their primes, you will see the 2 do not usually line up in pro boxing the majority of the time. In those instances fighters are actually scientifically considered supposedly well past prime in mid 30s,& yet todays fighters are still young in mid 30s & oftentimes still undefeated.

What do yall think?


Heres a few examples,ggg didn't fight anyone good & truly earn his 1st belt til mid 30s,Bud is on course to fight someone on his level by mid 30s,Canelo is now fighting champs & favored over champs that were considered a bridge too far when he was in his full prime as he's slightly past it but now is firing on all cylinders, Beterbieve was 35 when he beat gvoz,Loma is going on 32.

Despite all of this I constantly see fighters being considered washed up because they're mid 30s yet when those same fighters were in physical prime they were considered bums,

I would argue that fighters in mid 30s esp. undefeated ones should be the most prized scalps in boxing for a fighters mantle

I agree they are not the same.

Physical peak used to be 25-33ish but that to me is severely outdated and not in alignment with current nutritional and genetic knowledge. We also now understand that your birth age and your bodies age are not necessarily the same. Your body can be older, or younger than you actually are on paper.

Your boxing "prime" is when you are at the peak of your abilities and the most well rounded and best fighter you can be. This can align with the above, but it easily does not. If you start late and don't take a lot of damage and take care of your body and mind, you will peak probably 10 years into dedicated practice, training and experience, maybe sooner. That's regardless of what age you are.

Lazy, ignorant casuals love to spew nonsense and spread misinformation. They move the goal posts and only speak of prime when its convenient to their argument, but real athletes know you don't fall off some magical cliff in your 30s. Its accumulated wear and tear, combined with early career starts, and literally destroying your body that has many athletes tapering off around that time. It has nothing to do with being 35, or 36, it's more about, you have been putting your body through tremendous stress and punishment for 15+ straight years and you will both get diminishing returns, and your body is a finite resource. We are largely in control of our performance and longevity, but you can still break your body down prematurely if you aren't careful.

And prime is only so relevant anyway. Intelligent fighters like B-Hop were effective well past it because of IQ, skill, style, and discipline. So you are fighting a guy past his prime. So what? He is still the same fighter and from an inside the ring approach, you still need to approach the fight the right way. It's one thing for a fan to say, from his couch, "oh X fighter lost it, he's done" but for an opponent to think that way, it's very foolish. The insistence to speak of fighters as if "Pac in 2003" isn't the same as 2005. It's the same person you moron. Speaking of fighters from specific performances as if they are all different people (i.e. if X fighter fought the version of Y fighter when Y fighter fought Z fighter, fighter X stops fighter Y...) is truly pointless to me. As they say in football, any given Sunday.