Originally Posted by Danebrogen
You sir are truely a scholar of boxing. I mean the logical deduction you employed here is beyond brilliant. You have found a fool proof way of determining whether a fighter is in his prime or not, you just have to look at his physique.
I just saw Mike Tyson Vs Clifford Etienne on youtube and his body was in great shape, weighing less than 2kgs more than his second fight with Holyfield! Obviously a prime a Mike Tyson in action as late as 2003 and 37 years of age!
Any evidence to back up a claim to the contrary?
Any evidence to prove that Tyson was some sort of genetic abnormality who went past his prime in his 20s despite being great shape?
He was 29/30 when he fought Holyfield. So he certainly wasnt past his peak age wise, he was the same weight, same muscle definition so he was clearly training.
Yet people here try to pretend that somehow,for some reason he was past his prime just because he got beaten.
If Tyson could have somehow fought the 1996 version of Holyfield in 1991, the same thing would have happened.