combination of 4 factors 1. Age 2. How he looks on film(is he consistent with his performances or is there a decline?) 3. Where you record your best wins of your career 4. I put more emphasis on how a fighter looks in his previous fight going into a fight where he takes a big loss, then his performance after the loss. Example: Walcott looked fantastic going into the Marciano fight with a sensational knockout over Ezzard Charles. He then performed equally as good against Marciano the first time, then dropped off the face of the earth. Him never doing anything post Marciano I shouldn't take away from that awesome win Marciano had over him in the first fight
A fighter in his prime has consistent performances against good competition and shows no signs of being shot
While he's still fighting? That's hard. I judge boxers not on their prime which is usually a short window, but on when they are good enough to beat their compotion. That includes their prime and the time right before and after. I think the best example I can think of among current boxers isd Floyd Mayweather. He's past his prime, but he should beat every light welterweight to light middleweight around. If he were to lose he should be judged as harshly as if he was in his prime. I've read that normaly males have our physcial prime at the ages 24-27.
While they are fighting is a difficult task, when they are retired it could still be debated and disagreed on let me try and do examples Hopkins vs Trinidad to De La Hoya seemed to come into his own, though he wasnt young he was fighting like he was young the best and sharpest he ever was and he was mature as a fighter Mayweather Gatti to Hatton, guy was flawless and at his physical best
A combination of physical prowess and development in skillset. Easiest to judge after his prime. It seems to me that age 32 is the upper limit of prime for most fighters, with rare exceptions like Marquez. Sometimes I think it would be best if all pro fighters were required to retire at age 32. (That assumes, of course, there'd be some type of profit sharing and pensions in pro boxing.)
Something along this line. Most athletes start to lose something physically as they near their mid 30's. Most primes years in most sports are late 20's to early 30's. But i would say prime years are when you are still young enough to have retained most of your athleticism from your youth but have matured enough to maximize your skills/experience.
It's not quite so easy to judge, I think, cos it seems that in the higher weight classes where the emphasis is more on strength and endurance than speed and agility, the 'prime' age can be early 30s - with obvious outliers like Iron Mike. The profit-sharing/pensions idea is a great one, but I can't see it happening in the merciless dog-eat-dog world of prize-fighting, certainly not without some kind of unionisation amongst pro-fighters... Hmmm.:think Does anyone know if that has ever been attempted?
Performance wise. Age doesn't always tell the story.Some fighters are done in their 20's depending on how their career has gone while others are still good in their 30's.
by his performance in the ring, though it doesn't always go in part with factors like age or level of opposition ( for example if he's fighting in a currently a weak division)
for example, but it also has a lot to do with the Klitschko's being A level, and the rest of the division being B and lower
