That so called PRIME word.

The longest consistent run of top performances against world class/top level opponents that the fighter has is their prime.

It's all subjective, there's no real indications of when a fighter's prime begins and ends.

As for Pacquiao-Barrera, I think it's absurd to believe that MAB was 'shot' in the first fight. He had looked superb immediately before and after the fight. However, there were clear outside distractions for Barrera going into that fight that likely affected him. I don't think he'd ever be able to beat Pacquiao really, but it wouldn't have been as one-sided as it was if Barrera was truly 100%.

He was clearly past his prime for the rematch (although still an excellent fighter) and was up-against an improved Pacquiao but still managed to be more competitive than he was in their first fight.

 

I think once you past 35 your past your prime.

 

Interesting question. I will agree with the Cobra. It is only seemingly identified in hindsight after a boxer has lost consistently. Age would be an important factor, but we are seeing more and more exceptions to the age factor as evidenced by the recent Bhop performance and Holyfield performance. Generally people are fighting, living longer than the past.

So my definition of prime is "the hindsight review of a fighters string of best fights against their toughest competition".

™ RC 2008

 

Barrera fought and dominated Naz in 2001, and his only prime performance after that was against Sanchez, in my opinion.

His two fights leading up to Pac was against Kelley, a past his prime Featherweight with limited heart and will, and of course the criminally underrated Tapia, a great 115lb fighter, but is no way a Featherweight. Barrera dominated both fights, and won them easily, stopping Kelley early and taking his friend Tapia to the distance, hitting him at will every time he opened up, but coasted for long periods. He clearly got complacent, and if you compare the Barrera of the Pacquiao fight and the one that fought Sanchez, it is like night and day.

You have to give Pacquiao credit for an outstanding win, mainly because Barrera put on one of his greatest ever performances a year later, but fighters have off nights and Barrera had many. Against Valbuena, he was fighting a pretty average fighter after his war with Morales in their first fight, and he did not impress. He won handily, but he did not look good, and the limited valbuena gave as good as he got. As the bell for the end of the fight rang, Barrera was visible disappointed with his effort, shaking his head. That was one off night, the next one was obviously against Pacquiao. Not only did Pacquiao look great; fast hands, never ending intensity, and a will to win, but Barrera was slow, and he thoughthe had another Johnny Tapia in front of him. He was caught off guard, as was the whole Boxing world. A star had emerged.

Barrera's last off-night was in his first fight with Jaurez, but to be fair to Marco, he did suffer a bad injury to his nose early, much like Morales in their third memorable battle. But he was getting hit more often than usual, and in the rematch, he vindicated himself by outboxing Jaurez with ease, and proving that the first fight was a fluke.

Barrera's last fight, or seemingly his last, before his unexpected comeback under Don King promotions, Barrera took on Manny Pacquiao, who by this time had been racking up his wins and climbing the P4P list. Barrera fought complacent, but he had marginal success, often matching Pacquiao blow for blow. Some people actually think there is a case for a draw, but I think Manny won the fight, but he never dominated Barrera like he had in their previous meeting. Barrera new what was coming, and this was undeniably a past his prime version, and he faired better. Come to your own conclusions.

Something tells me you'll understand the term "past his prime" better once Manny starts to experiance it himself. The speed deteriates, as does the will to win, amongst other things. It's undeniable and inevitable.

 

You can tell because it's like - you look at them and you think "you're missing something that was very good" that you had at one time in your career.

It is subjective, but I think you can tell when looking at a fighter. My examples would be:

1. Mikkel Kessler beacsue you look at him at interviews and he is just bursting with strength.
2. Hatton was in his prime when fighting Tszyu.
3. Margarito at the moment because he just overwhelmed Cotto.
4. Jones before the Ruiz fight - he used to literally fly and now his legs are well heavy - just inert compared to before

Hopkins is a interesting one - what's he on?

How to tell if shot:
1. Markus Beyer - he was at a Mikkel Kessler fight, either Haussler or Sartison, and he simply looked burntout. You can just tell.
2. Chris Byrd - saw him in a photo with his fists right on the camera lense and just thought this guy has something missing.

 

Hopkins seems to have gotten better. Most of his biggest wins are past 35.

 

Some fighters get better as they get older, like fine wine or blue cheese

 

Past prime is used when your guy loses

 

I agree, it's always a good excuse

 

Age isn't a good indicator. It CAN be in some cases, but look at Hopkins, then look at Vargas.

You can't tell when a fighter's prime is finished until their performance visibly starts to deteriorate. Barrera was in his prime against Pac, stop trying to act like people say he was shot.

For example: Ali was past his prime when he came back from exile, despite being only 30 (from memory), his reflexes had slowed, his foot speed and agility had deteriorated, and he just looked more sluggish.

Morales was past his prime before the third Barrera fight (note: I say before because I can't remember which fights he had before it, but it was clear by the Barrera fight he had slipped).

Oscar was past his prime probably after the Vargas fight, he never looked as good again (even in the Mosley fight).

Roy was clearly past his prime by the first Tarver fight.

These are all my opinion of course, I just watch the difference in their performances and can comfortably say they were past their primes at these times.

_____

The problem with judging a fighter's prime is that when they move up in weight, it can make them look worse despite them still being in their prime years. Nonetheless, that's where "peak" rather than "prime" comes in... Oscar probably peaked in 1999-2000, but was in his prime til 2002.

 

Well here's one for the books. I like Calzaghe, but if he fights gain, and loses, I'll cry " past Prime !!!! "
:hey

 

To be objective you can only accurately call Prime, when the fighter is done.

When they have retired, it's easy to point out the prime years...

When they are still active and seeming to be on the way down, they may mount a successful comeback...

 

Same here, but if he wins he is still in his prime isnt he!

 

If a fighter is facing a series of opponents who are not quite as good as he is, and he manages to beat them all, he's deemed in his prime.

But if he, still in his best form and physical condition, but just happens to meet a fighter who's a bit better than he is, and gets beaten, he is suddenly past his prime....

That may sound rediculous, but that is how many guys on this forum gauge a fighter's career. By their shallow perception, it seldom has anything to do with how well the opposition is, but that has everything to do with it in many cases, if you ask me.

A good fighter can MAKE another fighter look as if he's past his prime/not yet in his prime, when he is really performing up to the level he always has, its only that he's suddenly met someone better.

Prime example; When Tyson met Douglas, or Holyfield.