Definition: Boxing Prime -OR- The favorite excuse of boxing fans

THE MOST OVERUSED EXCUSE fans use to protect their favorite boxer is:

"When my boxer lost he was PAST HIS PRIME"

Variations are

  • "He was shot"
  • "He was shot to pieces"
  • "He was old as f*ck"
  • "He was past his peak"
  • "He was declining while his opponent was peaking"
  • "Wheelchair Boxing Federation"
  • "Grandpa wouldn't stop"
  • "The eye of the geezer"

So whatever you try to say to AliFans (e.g. about Ali vs Larry Holmes) or to Lennox fans (about the performance against Vitali Klitschko) they pretty fast will claim:

  • "Muhammad Ali was past-prime"
  • and "Lennox Lewis was fat and old"

This killer argument ("KO argument") is even twisted by accusing the other boxer of a bad performance:

  • "Larry Holmes sucks because he couldn't properly handle a shot Muhammad Ali"
  • "Overweight past-prime Lennox Lewis won against Vitali Klitschko thus Vitali Klitschko can never be an ATG"

 

 

What is the definition of "the prime of a boxer"? When is a boxer in his prime?

The first problem is that the prime of a boxer is utterly subjective.

Boxing fans simply decide "The prime of Muhammad Ali was 1967" (= this was the year where they think Ali performed best) by no objective standards.

They might say

  • "It was his prime because look how fast he was then, and how slow he was later"
  • or "Look how he could withstand punches in his prime"
  • or "Look, he was one of the youngest world champs thus this was his prime"
  • or "Look how athletic he was".

It's utterly subjective and you can find a lot of reasons to declare someone "in his prime" or "past his prime".

 

 

The truth about the "prime in boxing"

Let me tell you how I see things:

There are SEVERAL PRIMES = DIFFERENT PRIMES of a boxer = Different ATTRIBUTES that PEAK at different times.

There is the speed prime.

There is the chin prime.

There is the stamina prime.

There is the athleticism prime.

There is the the body toll prime (body injury prime) (which decreases after every fight and heals during longer breaks)

There is the hunger and dedication prime.

There is the reflex prime.

There is the prime of the power/accuracy/snap of the punch

There is the mobility prime prime (footwork, head movement, …).

etc…

Thus THE PRIME is when the COMBINED attributes add up to a "high level package of attributes".

In other words: A boxer may NEVER have a prime per se, only a high level combination of SEVERAL peaking (or near-peaking) attributes.

 

 

The Prime of a heavyweight boxer

Now, Nobody denies that a heavyweight boxer loses speed the older he gets.

But at the same time he may gain chin and resistance.

It was early Ali who was viciously knocked down by featherfist ·Henry Cooper 185 lbs not older Ali 12 years later against George Foreman 220 lbs or even older Ali (another 5 years later) against ·Larry Holmes.

Especially at heavyweight (where you need to do only 1 or 2 things really well) speed, athleticism etc are not as necessary as in lower divisions, since they can be substituted by other attributes.

Therefore…

At heavyweight the prime of a boxer
may be LATER and more PROLONGED
than at lower weight classes

In other words:

  1. Especially at heavyweight it's very difficult to assess prime. A boxer might be SLOWER than 4 years ago, and yet his stamina and power might have increased and compensate for the loss of speed.
  2. A heavyweight boxer's prime can indeed be in his mid-30ies (as opposed to other weight classes, and other sports actually).

I am not saying that these different "attribute primes" follow the same Gauss bell patterns for all boxers.

And I am not claiming that for ALL boxers "chin" will harden (or soften) as they get older.

And I am not saying that attribute XYZ peaks at the same year for every boxer.

But I am saying that

  • prime is more difficult to assess for heavyweight boxers
  • matching the right opponent for the current state of "set of your attributes" is more important at heavyweight than at other weight classes thus even older heavyweights might have huge wins EVEN AFTER their speed and reaction has faded.

In other words: Matching a heavyweight opponent to your current set of abilities can prolong your winning streak.

Therefore careful matchmaking (even after your supposed prime) may be more important than the actual physical attributes themselves (like speed and out-of-shape'ness).

 

 

How important is experience at heavyweight boxing?

Let's not forget experience.

Experience knows no prime because it increases with every fight.

Since at heavyweight boxers have usually LESS fights (than in other weight divisions) it means:

  • Every additional fight counts more at heavyweight than an additional fight at lower weights.
  • Additionally heavyweight boxers (as opposed to lower weight divisions) are far more diversified when it comes to boxing types and boxing styles therefore every fight increases the experience a lot
  • Therefore a heavyweight with, say, 10 more fights on the record than his opponent has a far greater experience advantage than, say, a featherweight with 10 fights more.

In other words: Especially at heavyweight EXPERIENCE is a HUGE ASSET.

And: Experience at heavyweight might be a bigger asset than at lower weights.

And: Experience may be more important than prime'ness in certain constellations.

And: Experience at heavyweight may be a substitute for a lot of other attributes.

 

 

A lesson in spin doctoring: Arguing with primes and eras is worthless

This "prime argument" (and some other arguments) is so worthless that you can always spin in the other way around, too.

Here are some examples how I can spin the SAME EVENT to its opposite:

  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali couldn't beat an out-of shape Lennox"
    Me: "Lewis chubbiness helped to withstand Vitali's attacks"
  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali couldn't beat a past-prime Lennox Lewis"
    Me: "Past prime by whose standards? Lennox' body was in less athletic shape but that does not mean that Lennox was past-prime"
  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali couldn't beat a past-prime Lennox Lewis"
    Me: "If you argue with prime then I claim 'pre-prime Vitali lost against a near-prime Lennox'"
  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali couldn't beat the oldest version of Lennox in his very last fight"
    Me: "Vitali retired Lewis"
  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali failed against the most inactive version of Lennox (1 year layoff of total inactivity)"
    Me: "A long time to heal wounds. He may have been more healthy and refreshed than ever."
  • Lennox Lewis fan: "Vitali was a lot younger, faster, and stronger than nowadays"
    Me: "Whatever he was, he was definitely LESS experienced"
  • Lennox Lewis hater: "No heavyweight champ can be considered an ATG when knocked out twice in his prime by ONE PUNCH from sub-par fighters. end of. " (original quote)
    Me: "That Lennox was prime when he got KO'ed is pure speculation. Maybe he was pre-prime and Rahman and McCall were in their primes."
  • AliFan: "Ali is an ATG. No one could beat Ali in his prime"
    Me: "That's circular logic because if someone DID beat Ali in his prime then you'd claim that Ali wasn't in his prime."
  • Tyson fan: "Tyson won because he was such a  good boxer"
    Tyson hater: "Tyson only won because the era was bad"
  • Tyson hater: "Tyson lost because he's such a bad boxer"
    Tyson fan: "Tyson lost? Damn it, what a good era with tough opponents!" or "That was Tyson BEFORE/AFTER his prime. Nobody beat Tyson in his prime!"

You see, you can take the exact same data as SPIN IT and then COME TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION. That is always possible if someone argues with "bad era" or "prime".

 

 

The boxing prime: The excuse and the virtue

"Prime" is not only used as an excuse ("Well, my boxer was shot, that's why he lost").

It's also used as a virtue: "Look how past-prime Ali won against Earnie Shavers".

The "prime argument" is used to diminish losses and heighten wins.

But, sorry, I disagree. If a boxer steps into the ring he steps into the ring. He should know best what he is capable of. Any argument like "He was pre-prime" or "His mother died" is an interesting anecdote but nevertheless it's revisionistic and tries to diminish the accomplishments of his opponent.

 

 

To all "prime arguers": Be careful what you argue for!

A typical claim is the following:

"Ali (29yro) was past-prime when he lost to Frazier. Joe Frazier never beat the prime Ali".

Now, if you as an AliFan consider 29 years "past prime" then just be careful that somebody doesn't check how many opponents Ali beat who were past THEIR prime (>= 29 years).

In other words: If you diminish Ali's loss by the "prime argument" you have to accept that others diminish Ali's wins against opponents who were also 29 years and older.

Let's check whom we would have to erase off Ali's record who was supposedly past prime:

Clay/Ali's opponentAge
Floyd Patterson37.7
Sonny Liston33.0 (official age)
Cleveland Williams33.3
Ron Lyle34.2
Bob Foster34.5
George Chuvalo34.6
Zora Folley35.8
Chuck Wepner36.0
Archie Moore48.9

Fistic Statistic [#2613.1]

Let's check Mike Tyson, whose fans seriously claim he was past-prime at age 25.

Let's check whom Tyson fought who was 25 and older…

Oops… nearly everybody whom Tyson fought was 25 and older. In fact EVERY non-bum Tyson faced was 25 or older (average age of Mike Tyson's opponents 30.99 years. Average age of Tyson's opponents he lost to is 33.0 years).

 

 

Lennox Lewis could only beat a past-prime Mike Tyson

In Tyson's case it gets especially bizarre since his loss to Lennox Lewis is nearly 100% attributed to Tyson's age. Yet it's utterly ignored that Lennox was even older.

If someone claims "A boxer was shot at age X"
then one should immediately delete off the record all opponents who were as old.
Fair is fair.

 

 

Summary

The prime argument is a killer argument. And since assessing prime is subjective it's a near-worthless killer argument.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.3/5 (25 votes cast)
Definition: Boxing Prime -OR- The favorite excuse of boxing fans, 3.3 out of 5 based on 25 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (25)

  • Larry says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Pesi Supa]
    #290 Larry (2011-05-17th)

    This article is terrible…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.4/5 (14 votes cast)
  • Killa says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Pusa Ryvo]
    #330 Killa (2011-05-25th)

    how is this article terrible? the prime excuse is the most overused annoying excuse and argument known to boxing

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.4/5 (9 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
    #365 Honza (2011-06-02nd)

    there is always something about prime and being in shape. I think that nobody can be in his 38 considered as prime boxer.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
    #366 Honza (2011-06-02nd)

    But it is true that prime is always individual. Wladimir Klitschko is better now in his 35 than he was in his 30.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Big Sam says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nivu Zamy]
    #1264 Big Sam (2011-09-29th)

    Tyson past prime at 25, what a joke. At 25 ANY boxer is still aproacing their prime. He's the most overated champion of all time. Most of Tyson's career was akin to Marciano's "bum a month campaign". He built a gret record and reputation fighting sub standard opponents. He had a big punch, but a small heart. Once he met worthy opponents and the fight was taken to him he crumbled. Overcoming adversity is the ultimate test; if a fighter that how can he be considered great.

    By the way great article, thanks.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Big Sam says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Nivu Zamy]
      #1265 Big Sam (2011-09-29th)

      I meant to say if a fighter cannot overcome adversity how can he be considered great.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
      • Tommo says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Nobe Tiru]
        #6998 Tommo (2014-02-08th)

        Nah man Mike was not like that at all. The best version of Mike would still be able to make a tough fight with any version of Evander, Lewis, Klitschko's or Bowe. Mike was way more than just a punch, he had a unique combination of attributes that made him one of the greatest fighters of all time.

        He fought a lot of bums until he won the title. After that he was not fighting bums, from Berbick on they were good fighters. Sure the tough 90's fighters were hard for him, that was a better era but Tyson was still one of the best!

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Bruce Crichton says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Lupa Jydo]
    #1542 Bruce Crichton (2011-10-17th)

    Vitali retired Lewis? In what imaginary universe did this happen?

    First of all, Lewis defeated Klitschko.
    Second, Lewis had been considering retirement since beating Mike Tyson the previous year.
    Third, using your argument, presumably Archie Moore retired Rocky Marciano and Roy Jones retired Joe Calzaghe.

    If Klitschko had beaten Lewis then you could have said that Klitschko had retired him but Lewis won the fight so you can't.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.8/5 (6 votes cast)
    • wessley says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Loje Tibu]
      #3451 wessley (2011-12-20th)

      He is biased to the ukranian fighters, he makes no sense, all the arguments and stats are distorted to make wlad or vitali look the best fighters in history, dont get me wrong they are very good, just no where near the best, neither one makes the HW top 12 in my mind or anyone with an once of boxing knowledge and un biased common sense.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 1.7/5 (6 votes cast)
      • Admin says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
        #3472 Admin (2011-12-25th)
        He is biased to the ukranian fighters, he makes no sense, all the arguments and stats are distorted to make wlad or vitali look the best fighters in history, dont get me wrong they are very good, just no where near the best, neither one makes the HW top 12 in my mind or anyone with an once of boxing knowledge and un biased common sense.

        You see, that is the problem with you. You have OBJECTIVE statistics and yet you complain about them because it doesn't fit your ideological mantra: That Clay/Ali, Tyson, Mack/Marciano will never be outmatched.

        Additionally I pre-answered your distorted-stats-claim at
        [post=932]

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • ManzaniTaGirL says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Sedi Tuwa]
      #3726 ManzaniTaGirL (2012-01-29th)

      Ezzard Charles III here, the money was long gone in the 70s guys we had to build everything ground up. Im writing a screen play on the life of Ezzard Charles and I really cound use some capital if it sounds like something you would like to do email me before september 2011 thank you.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • WESLEY says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xeki Kusa]
    #3481 WESLEY (2011-12-29th)

    No,i think our versions of OBJECTIVE differ completely, you have convieniently decided which weights are now applicable according to kick boxing rules, something that was not even around in world competion with governing bodies 50years ago, let alone being relevant as a different martial art.
    You have also made up a whole set of other rules that just happe to fit better to wlads record.
    You have been insulting to former greats like joe frazier calling him a "one eyed dwarf" like that is being very objectional and statistical right???????
    get real.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.3/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3538 Admin (2011-12-31st)
      No,i think our versions of OBJECTIVE differ completely, you have convieniently decided which weights are now applicable according to kick boxing rules

      Haha, that's because if I would set the margin EVEN HIGHER (let's say 230 lbs) then the old-timers would LOOK EVEN WORSE.

      Additionally I don't invent margins and then call it "heavyweight". I invent margins and give it an invented name (like "superheavyweight" or "ultraheavyweight") so that everybody can decide whether to go by the standard definition or a more realistic "superheavyweight" definition. Everybody knows that previous greats were not heavyweights in the sense we use the word today.

      You have also made up a whole set of other rules that just happe to fit better to wlads record.

      Yes? Like what? KOratio?

      I am so sorry for you that Wlad's KOratio is better than Ali's.

      You have been insulting to former greats like joe frazier calling him a "one eyed dwarf" like that is being very objectional and statistical right???????

      The "one-eyed dwarf" is insulting, yet pretty objective because Frazier would be tiny nowadays and he was blind on his left eye.

      Thus yes, it's shortened and striking, but true and objective.

      Additionally the blog title is "objective _statistics_". I don't claim that I write politically correctly or boringly.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.1/5 (10 votes cast)
  • wesley says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Xeki Kusa]
    #3681 wesley (2012-01-02nd)

    Having a favorite fighter is quite alright you know, thats not the problem, if you made the site as 'a wlad fan site' or gave your personel opinion such as..

    ..'due to the massive size of wlad' or 'modern training techniques means that wladimir klitchko, my fav fighter would probably beat any other fighter in history 1v1 in my opinion'…. then that would have some credibility..because that is your opinion, just as i and every one else has theres, however distorting facts and denouncing past fighters achievements and try to pass it off a 'facts' is insulting.
    especially as some people coming to this site might not have the knowledge to dispute the nonsense on this site.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #3683 Admin (2012-01-03rd)
      however distorting facts and denouncing past fighters achievements and try to pass it off a 'facts' is insulting.

      What facts are distorted? I am well aware that the facts that I feature at this site COLLIDE with the grandiosity fantasies of good-old-time boxing fans.

      But I don't present any distortions or lies.

      especially as some people coming to this site might not have the knowledge to dispute the nonsense on this site.

      Including you.

      I present these statistics since YEARS now to boxing fans all over the world. Nobody has EVER come up with valid counter-facts, let alone counter-statistics.

      After years I have collected every "counter argument" I could lay my hands on to feature it in my blog.

      Therefore I am VERY happy if someone tries to counter-argue. That way I simply get to write more articles.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
  • Honza says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Jylo Geli]
    #5271 Honza (2012-11-08th)

    You prove that you are klitschko fan because you are defending only vitali in his fight with lewis. why? that match is truly separating two types of fans. firsts claim that lewis was lucky a the fight should continue and seconds claim that lewis won fair and square. if you are objective than you would denfend both boxers but you are with no doubt fan of klitschkos.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Admin says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5272 Admin (2012-11-08th)

      1) Lewis tore apart Vitali's face and it was because of the class of Lewis.
      2) Would Vitali lose his next fight, I too, would give his opponent full credit.

      I am not criticizing anyone's performance, I am criticizing how fast fans switch into Oh-he-was-shot-when-he-lost mode, as soon as their favorite boxer gets exposed.

      I completely understand that there is a decline. I completely understand that 40-yro Vitali may be past his prime. But then Vitali has to chose EASIER opponents that match his state of abilities. When he choses such easier opponents then everybody can see "He won, but his opponent was a B-level fighter." However as soon as he choses A-level opponents he has to take full responsibility for losing, as he would take full credit for winning.

      Lennox was 37 when he fought Vitali.
      When Vitali was 37 he fought Juan Carlos Gomez. Had Gomez won I would equally criticize Vitali fans for claiming "Oh, Vitali was already soooo old".

      Even more ridiculous are Tyson fans:
      Tyson loses against Douglas -> "Oh, that's because Tyson had a hooker party".
      Tyson (30yro) loses against Holyfield (34yro) -> "Oh, Tyson was past his prime".
      Tyson (35yro) loses against Lennox (36) -> "Oh Tyson was sooo old".

      There are two reasons why I dislike arguing with prime. The first is that it's a sore loser's argument. And the second is the revisionistic one-way-logic, because it tries to diminish a loss but not a win:

      Take again Tyson. If you believe Tyson fans, then Tyson's prime was pre-prison (= until he was 24 years). Every loss thereafter is being blamed on "post prime". However, if Tyson fans would really be fair, they should diminish Tyson wins against 25+ years opponents, too. Why should only Tyson have the benefit of the doubt? Why should Tyson's wins against 25+ year olds be credited 100%, when Tyson's own losses were merely due to age?

      So let's see what opponents were 25, when Tyson fought them: Ooops, ALL of Tyson's opponents were 25 years of age and older (except a few bums).

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
      • Honza says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Bote Kitu]
        #5462 Honza (2013-01-02nd)

        Take again Tyson. If you believe Tyson fans, then Tyson's prime was pre-prison (= until he was 24 years).
        If you ask me than Mike Tysons prime was from 1986 – 1996 probably. Age is a huge factor in boxing but Mike was one of the few guys that was A level boxer when he was very young. Lets just compare diferent boxers with same age. Mike (21 years) vs. Wlad (21 years) who would win? I guess Mike. Than if you take Mike and Wlad (10 years older) and I think that Wlad would win. Prime is relative.

        I completely understand that there is a decline. I completely understand that 40-yro Vitali may be past his prime. But then Vitali has to chose EASIER opponents that match his state of abilities. When he choses such easier opponents then everybody can see "He won, but his opponent was a B-level fighter." However as soon as he choses A-level opponents he has to take full responsibility for losing, as he would take full credit for winning.

        What? What does it mean? Are you saying that Vitali is choosing weaker oponents now or not? And yes it is obvious that he is fighting B level boxers most of the time. Wlad is still trying to fight the best possible oponents. Vitali is cherry picker.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • Tommo says:
          flag
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5638 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

          People should not use prime or age as an excuse for Mike losing that is stupid. The division got bigger and better and Mike couldn't train in prison properly and lost his guidance. Specifically his style degenerated performance wise. But this had nothing to do with Tyson's age or physical capabilities.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • Tommo says:
            flag
            [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
            #5713 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

            But it should also be noted Honza that your point about Mike reaching his prime at very young age has substantial merit to it. Mike was a swarmer and that high paced furious style was highly energetic and relied on being fast and dynamic and to be successful at all with the highest reactions/reflexes. It is a style suited mainly to youthful fighters full of finesse. Most swarmers do have shorter career spans.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  • Andrew says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Nygo Seri]
    #5557 Andrew (2013-03-17th)

    Great website! I don't agree with it 100% but the annoyingly common, completely ignorant boxing fans need this badly, and the sport in general needs a more "sabermetric" analysis, as you are providing (better than anyone I've seen I might add). I hope you write a book at some point. Word of advice if you do? Be more politically correct and respectful, you have some great points but your impact is diminished by seemingly going out of your way to antagonize the less intelligent or sophisticated fans or traditionalists. A couple inconsistencies too, you note real life reasons to question wins of Ali (2nd Liston match and Foreman match may have been fixed in some way, Cleveland Williams impaired, etc), or excuses why Wladimir lost (tired himself out etc)but in other locations, you are unforgiving in your application of the mathematical standards you define (bums, etc). While the mathematical objectification is incredibly important, it clearly fails to capture the full dynamics for those very real life, subjective standards that you note for a few fighters, which surely could be applied to any fighter. Some of those you label bums may have been wildly inconsistent, but were still dangerous even to the top fighters, again subjective but unavoidable (in modern era, look at Ross Purrity). Also, as you note, the era has changed in how fights are selected, few rematches, etc, its likely that such changes make a pure mathematical win loss approach slightly unbalanced generationally in some measures. I'm not suggesting you try to factor this in at all, just acknowledge that they are approximates and can't capture the subjectivities that do play some kind of role in a complete evaluation. And while you do a great job of conveying that the top historical heavyweights are likely no match for the top modern heavyweights in the ring, you unfairly dismiss the admission of other factors into "greatness". I think Emmanuel Stewart has the right approach, though not the right ranking. You say anyone can have fame, but by the same logic anyone can have a great right hand. Impact on society and to the sport that allowed modern heavyweights to exist is an important and worthy definition of greatness. Personally, while I'd rank Vitali or Lennox 1 or 2 respectively, and Wlad 3, for who would win any boxing match historically, my actual ranking of all time HW greats is: Ali 1, Louis 2, Marciano 3 Dempsey 4 Lennox 5 Vitali 6, Sullivan 7 Foreman 8 Holmes 9 Johnson 10 Tyson 11 and Wlad down at 12 (for now, I'm confident he'll reach top 10 before the end of his career) based on a combination of fight ability, import to boxing as a sport, significance to society. You often say its rediculous to include such out of ring factors, but its an unmistakable part of why boxing exists and why its important. If you just acknowledge that and dislaim your website that you aren't looking past the ring, and that to your own personal standards define greatness as who would win in a match, that would be more appropriate and perhaps somewhat less likely to offend, especially if you were a bit kinder in your approach. Anyway, overall, excellent website!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  • Alexander says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Wuna Syto]
    #6158 Alexander (2013-05-06th)

    This discussion about Tyson is juat a shame.

    Tyson lost early his family, had a difficult childhood and was looking for someone who likes him
    , a father figure. He found him in Cus D’Amato but he also died a few years later.

    Its fact that Tyson lost many of his good properties (boxing , character) by
    Don King. His best Time was 85 – 89 – he never had a real prime.

    So stop to talk sh*t of which you have no idea.

    Klitschko Fans are the biggest clowns in boxing.

    Iam with Foreman and many other Sport experts who said that no one will remember
    Wladimir.

    Tyson , Ali Fights has seen the whole world ALL TIME RECORD
    And US fame for herself Boxers is just a Myth

    Rocky Marciano , Max Schmeling , many others guys are loved in USA.

    Klitschko is just a boring boxer in a weak era , that is all

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  • Fraser Buchanan says:
    flag
    [ip2username: Titu Baby]
    #7116 Fraser Buchanan (2014-04-26th)

    "He was past his prime" is an over-used over-simplification that is often used as an excuse for a fighter's weak outing against another opponent. It often lacks any kind of critical analysis of why that fighter lost the fight. Occasionally, it'll have some merit. For example, I don't think anyone will argue that Margarito's orbital bone was clearly past its prime in his last outing with Cotto or that Joe Louis was past his prime when he faced Rocky Marciano. Those two examples are black and white. When discussing the implications of fights like Klitschko vs Lewis, you can't just use the "past his prime" argument.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Tommo says:
      flag
      [ip2username: Xydo Kedi]
      #7638 Tommo (2014-10-26th)

      The prime argument is carried to an absolute extreme for Evander Holyfield.

      I can somewhat understand to some degree ppl arguing that Holy was shopworn by the 2000's, despite his greater experience at this time.

      But on certain other "forums" it is common practice for the "Classic" or "History" section posters to want to sell the idea that Holyfield was immediately shot straight after his SD win against Bowe!

      Basically excusing every single loss against every opponent except Bowe 1 (for which there is another), and then when he beats any good opponent or even merely survives them, it's proof that the so called "prime" Holyfield would have whipped them easy.

      And I am a Holyfield fan and even I can see this is a ludicrous joke!

      Holyfield would ALWAYS struggle with Ibragimov and Valuev from the 2000's, I know that! And at 205lbs (i.e. the weight he fought Bowe at, before mega steroids, I don't think he could have beaten Mike Tyson!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Honza says:
        flag
        [ip2username: Lymo Teji]
        #7809 Honza (2015-01-21st)

        Holy prime somehow ended with loss to Lewis. It was time to slow down for him. And what mega steroids are you talking about? Steroids give you 15 lbs of weight? He did not seem that much more muscular later on. He was heavier but so what? Klitschkos, Bruno, Brewster were definetly steroid users too. More boxers were.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies