What you have stated is a distinction without any meaningful difference. He lost to Sanders in 2003. He hired Steward in 2003. He rematched Sanders... never.
I'm not going through 9 pages of answers to see who agrees. Wlad was most assuredly in his physical prime. As far as in terms of skillset, no
Brewster 1 was his first fight with Emmanuel Steward..... "They were together for 17 fights, Steward taking Klitschko on in 2004 and rebuilding him into one of the most dominant heavyweight champions in boxing history. It looked as though it might be a short union because in their first fight together Klitschko suffered a shocking fifth-round knockout loss to Lamon Brewster in a vacant heavyweight title fight that Klitschko had been winning easily" https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_...itschko-thinking-late-trainer-emanuel-steward
Boxing wise i always saw prime as your peak in terms of when you were at your best. Lewis was probably in his physical prime in his 20s but he wasn't in his prime. You know ?
That's another take I see people using. Physical prime, IMO, is much easier to determine then 'at your best' prime, which can go in different directions based on the opponent chosen. Pac can look like he's still in his prime with carefully chosen opponents. But he's neither in his physical prime, or 'best look' prime. I Can't say I've really subscribed to that version. As far as it's been with watching sports all my life, prime has pretty much always referred to physical. Just my two cents.
The Sanders / Wlad rematch never happened because of a lot of reasons. There's a whole thread on it here: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-other-way-round.583384/page-19#post-18456185 Suffice to say I doubt either guy would have turned it down if the stars had been aligned differently.