Carmen Basilio vs Jose Mantequilla Napoles, 147 lbs.

'Past prime' is not the same as 'washed up' or 'shot'. Robinson was certainly past his prime by '55/'56. He'd peaked physically years before but still had the experience, smarts and enough left physically to beat some very good and near great or even great fighters - he was that good that he didn't need to be at his physical peak to keep winning.

Think Ali beating Foreman - no way was he in his physical prime at 32 but that combination of experience and smarts as well as having enough left in the tank physically was enough for him to beat quality opposition. That's my take on it anyway...

 

I call that post prime, but I don't agree. I believe Robbie's prime was '42 to '58 and Ali's was '63 to '75. I am a big fan of Robinson and Ali in their second careers. Obviously very little of Robinson in the 40s is observable, and Ali was great in the 60s, but they were just too great in their second decade.

 

Well I don't disagree about their greatness of course, we're just maybe not in agreement about what constitutes a prime. I think it is largely a physical thing, as in 'he was still in his physical prime at 25'. I think there was a thread about this a while back - whether there is a difference between physical 'prime' and 'peak' - but ultimately I tie it (mostly) to physical condition. Very few fighters, particularly from that era, would be considered in their primes in their mid 30s. Depends on your definition really, though.

By my definition, I'd probably agree with you on the rough start dates for Robinson (1942) and Ali (1963) but I'd take the end dates to 1950/51 for Robinson and 1967 for Ali with his enforced retirement at the age of 24. He missed the rest of what would have been his prime years during his three and a half year exile. But like Robinson, he came back past his prime to still achieve great things.

For me, differentiating between 'post prime' and 'past prime' is splitting hairs somewhat. But either way, it's not 'prime'.

 

You clarified this some for me. I don't think of age as prime, other than I usually consider a fighter from 25 to 32 prime and anything above that old/ older. When I say prime, I refer to the time frame in which any given fighter registered the bulk of his best wins and most impressive performances. Given that, you can see how I extend Robinson's and Ali's peaks later than you and many others do. I would agree that Robinson was technically no longer prime after '51, but went on to recapture the middleweight title four times. That's not the accomplishment of a wash-up. Also a lot of those wins after LaMotta are some of Robinson's greatest moments against Turpin, Graziano, Maxim, Olson, Fullmer, and Basilio. As for Ali, I do agree that Ali was much faster and mobile in the 60s, whereas in the 70s he relied more on wits and his chin. Despite that, Ali was still EXTREMELY fast and mobile in the 70s despite having lost a bit in both areas. As for Ali, who imo had really two careers due to missing out on his peak like you say, peaked twice imo. The first time was from '63/ '64 to '67 and the second time was '74-'75. Ali had a lot of great wins and performances in the the 70s and I would end his prime with Manila. Although he did well in Norton III, and beat Shavers impressively (not a great boxing display, and Ali was in horrible condition, but Ali was unusually tested in terms of could he take punishment, and made one of his greatest comebacks to put up one of his greatest finishes), and also shock the boxing world by defeated Spinks in a rematch, I would not extend Ali's peak to '78, '77, or '76, for Ali was not defeating big names legitimately or impressively as a WHOLE, and thus I left his peak back at '75.

 

Like Ken Norton once said: "Age is a state of mind."

 

Billy Graham was coming to the end of his career and his record either side of the loss and draw to Basilio tells the story.
Robinson was at middle and was past his own prime too anyway.
Ike was past his best weight and his best performances at WW.
What's his case for getting the better of Gavilan btw?

 

You do realise post prime literally means the exact same thing as past prime?

 

it is part of post prime. Post prime by my definition is when you're past ur best, still dangerous, yet no longer at the top.

 

Graham just scored his best win before losing to Basilio. It's a brilliant win.

I already said they were past prime.

Close fight, could've gone either way.

 

Graham was 8-8-2 from 1952 onwards. He might have had his best win during that time but he was losing as much as he was winning, if not more, at that time of his career and those wins while really good say a lot about Basilio and Giardello.

 

But by definition you could be 90 and post prime. I think a better description would be 'lost a step'

 

Robinson turned pro in 1940. His prime was the early 40s till probably '48 or 49. He fought Basillio in '57 LOL.
Huge difference between being shot and past prime.

 

I disagree with the first part, and agree with the second part.