Re: When will people realize Wlad was not in his prime when he lost 3 times?
I believe the idea of prime (when a fighter is at their peak) is sometimes mistakenly judged purely on age and experience. That's understandable given practically all fighters have a prime somewhere between 25-32 years old, and beginning somewhere around their 20th-30th fights. However, in some cases it should be recognised that these criteria don't always tell the whole story. Wladimir is a good example. He was reasonably experienced when he took those losses (certainly by the Brewster fight he'd already had a number of fights at a decent level) and clearly he wasn't too young or too old to be outside of his prime in a strict physical sense, but quite obviously he wasn't the best version of Wladimir Klitschko when he stepped into the ring to fight Sanders and Brewster. Time has shown that.
It's dishonest for a boxing fan to claim Wlad was prime when he lost those fights, unless prime is only meant to mean physical prime. In which case Tyson was still in his prime when he lost to Holyfield, and few boxing fans would actually argue for that being the case