Do you think that sometimes at times, being past someone's prime isnt really a good excuse?

Mayweather had far more fights counting the ams and was further from his prime than Manny.

 

People love to excuse their favorite fighters for loses and then act as if others (Mayweather, Ward, Calzaghe) had infinite primes just because their hands kept getting raised.

 

The amateurs where he fought the same way with head gear, two minute rounds and heavier gloves? Stop. Otherwise we have to start having the conversation that GGG, Loma and Rigo were far better than Floyd and well past their prime as professionals given their amateur careers.

 

I’m amused at how oblivious you are to Lomachenko and Rigondeaux only having a few good years in the pros before showing signs of age and GGG being at the last leg of his prime when meeting Canelo whereas Canelo was in the early years of his prime; Canelo turned pro before GGG.

 

Despite the age difference they were both about as far away from their primes as each other.
I think Floyd would have beaten Pac at any time but his style suited being past prime far more the Mannys

 

Everyone ages differently; some live to be 100, others die before 30.
Christiano Ronaldo at 40 is much better than Maradona at 30; he also looks younger and healthier. Does that mean he was ever better than Diego at the Mexican World Cup? I don't think so.

Holyfield started earlier than Bowe, he had tougher opponents, he fought more wars but
25 old Holyfield <25 old Riddick Bowe
35 old Holyfield > 35 old Riddick Bowe

 

Manny lost to Floyd in between beating Bradley twice, two of his best wins, eventually followed by Thurman in 2019.

Floyd was still good enough to beat anyone on skill, but his legs and power were slipping from Maidana on. The sort of stiff resistance he gave guys like Shane was gone.

 

Nope, according to your logic any fighter who had more amateur fights than Floyd was washed up and past prime. I mean, none of them were every elites at their best so it makes sense.

 

Good answer mate

 

That actually isn’t my logic. You just invented it.

 

Listen, I come from strong Silurian Huguenot stock and we don't cotton to none of that funny business. We're tough ole hombres out here. So, I'm with you.

 

How many professional boxing matches has the thread starter had to talk such sheet?

Clueless.

 

Not disagreeing with you here but are there any other evidences in the sport's history where putting on muscle then dropping it had a negative performance?

 

it is also true sometimes fighter's concerns, complaints or claims are also 100% fact...

loads of fighters, at times, had to enter the ring not a 100%, especially in pastimes when fighting monthly. Coming off Flu's, fighting with a cold, cuts hardly time to heal and of course Fighting injuries, hands, wrists, arms, ribs and so on.

I mean why would I even question such, especially when reported & validated in previous reports.

just the same as you going to work not always 100%, even if just once or twice in a year.

past prime & novice years are equally legitimate facts, most fighters are less than they were in their last & first few years, not all but most.

also, an 'excuse' might not have changed an outcome, some fighters are just going to beat you, being better than you, but yes, yes sometimes an excuse 'absent, i.e. 100% may indeed have changed the outcome.

we, the fans, the posters, the analytics, are more often not fact based, rather than fighter's circumstances. Respect to them.

 

Chris Byrd

Chad Dawson

Antonio Tarver