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

[ruedboy]

Boxing is a skill sport, so a fighter might be in his absolute physical prime but not reach his"boxing" prime for a few years yet. Also fighters who are aggressive and willing to trade will age faster than a cautious defensive fighter who won't take as many punches.
Then you have a fighter like Roberto Duran and you have to throw all the theories out the window.

[BOJACK]

most boxers hit their prime around like 25 or 26 or so, and break down by about 30 or so.

[Ca$ual Fan]

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.

That’s why discussing ‘prime’ is such a subjective point of view. IMO Morales beat a physical prime Pac and Marquez beat a boxing peak Pac

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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

A fighters prime is a case by case basis. People often confuse age with prime.

Look at Mike Tyson and B-Hop for example, one peaked at 20, the other didn’t peak until his mid 30’s.

Age should be irrelevant tbh, it should be based on recent performances. Beterbiev at 35 has just convincingly stopped Gvodzyk he’s evidently in his prime, whilst Kovalev at 35 was clearly in decline so was evidently past his prime.

As I say it’s a case by case basis.

[Thuglife Nelo]

There is no such thing as “physical peak” in boxing because the very best are then measured or challenged to what we call P4P. It would be subjective regarding weightclass.

In the Olympics, “physical peak” is more appropriate because to be at the most optimal level would refer to an ideal weight. For example weight is highly calibrated with runners and swimmers. an extra lb can be detrimental for the finish line.

With boxing “prime” is more ideal because it could be the optimized level of experience and intuition with fighting. Seeing the pattern of the very best this is why I consider Canelo a dangerous fighter for any guy and many opponents know this. I see a lot of Andrade highlights and imo he is wreckless. Canelo baits guys guys and goes for counters. Canelo imo is in his prime just like Floyd was past 30. Intuitively sound with defense. I think Loma and Crawford are in their prime as well.

[The Big Dunn]

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 think your point makes sense and I agree with it.

This shouldn’t even be an issue that is so controversial but so many posters have just gone overboard in finding ways to denigrate wins when the guy they love loses that it has.

[Thuglife Nelo]

[TarrenceRoberts]

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 life complaints 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.

Quite a detailed and well-reasoned answer. Let's see what Tyson and Roy Jones show us - Cannabis Liberator vs. Fighting **** Farm Owner.

[abracada]

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

Boxers don’t defy science.

After 30 years of age, men’s testosterone drop rapidly, and also men’s strength and muscle drops it’s called sarcopenia, and is science, fact.

What may mitigate diminished strength and athleticism is the boxers experience, skills, and sometimes peds eg TRT.