Did Oliver McCall TKO a prime Lennox Lewis?

Lewis has a lot of nuthuggers on his forum.

 

Improve parts of their game they may but are they a better fighter in general ? Foreman was in his 40s in the 90s and significantly improved his pace with the same technical aspects from his prime but he was old, slower and fat. Foreman from the 70s was the more fearsome and destructive fighter and probably would have been a harder nights work for Holyfield wheras Lewis was still physically great in his early and mid 30s with Steward but he was also technically far better than he was against Mccall. Quite literally a level above his former self in every aspect besides speed.

So no he was not in his prime unless you're referring to his physical prime.

 

Some people try to claim comeback Foreman was better than prime Foreman but I never bought it tbh.

Every fighter will have an absolute peak performance where they are the perfect blend of physical, emotional, mental and technical, but it's extremely rare for someone peak to be described in a losing effort.

Either way, I vote yes in this thread. Cba playing semantics with peak, physical prime blah blah, just as a straight yes no question I go yes.

 

Because it is a genuine distinction. Physically he was but technically wise not even close. He was a much better fighter later on. We can agree to disagree.

 

I know we discussed this a little before, but IMO, A lot of people are wrong. An athletic prime has nothing to do with improving skills. Posters have bastaradized that term to mean what they want, just like with what P4P means, or who's an ATG. A boxing prime is no different than any other sports athlete's prime. Lewis got more skillful as he gained experience and learned from mistakes.

So, with your analogy, the 35 YO version might be more skilled at that point (Which is just goes hand in hand w/ experience pretty much), but physically, his body is not that of the 25yo. It's already started to break down.

Whoever decided skills are some form of indication of a "prime", just muddled up a perfectly good term. Anyway, like I said the other time. I understand why people think prime in boxing means when at your most skilled...but I will never agree with that. It's too easy to LOOK more skillful when older if you pick the right guys.

 

There's no such thing as a technical prime. You can google one of many sites discussing an athletes's prime. They all say about the same. Boxing isn't any different.

 

You can literally look up the definition of "in his prime" or "in my prime" or just the definition of "prime" itself. It means when one is at his best or peak. A younger Lewis was more athletic but regardless late 90s Lewis is much better than pre Steward Lewis. An entire level above even.

 

I did. Looked at about 6-7 different sites on the topic. Pretty much all refer to an athletic prime.

 

I disagree with this. Prime refers to peak performance, not the age when you necessarily can run the fastest or have the most flexibility and quickest reflexes. That athletic peak happens earlier for most athletes in all sports than their actual peak performance, and what we care about is when an athlete actually was performing his best.

Some people peak athletically at 19, many in their early 20s, many more around 25. Lewis at 29 would have been past his athletic peak but not yet arrived at his fighting prime. There's commonly a big gap between those respective peaks for HWs.

 

That's another personal definition of prime. Prime for me, will always refer to the physical prime. The 'technical prime' isn't something that exists.

 

No. The Lewis that lost to McCall really was not that good. He basically was a "poke the jab and throw a big right hand" fighter. He also had a terrible habit of closing his eyes when he threw the right hand. I believe Pepe Correa was his trainer, who did a poor job with Lewis. Add in that McCall was a terrible opponent for a fighter who basically had only only one game plan, being throw the big right hand, against an immovable object, being McCall's chin.

 

I agree he improved.

Id just answer this thread with a yes.

 

Prime = peak performance. That's all it could ever mean, because you evaluate athletes based on their performance.

By your logic, the novice who beat the 23-yo Bernard Hopkins beat a "prime" Hopkins. That just seems silly to me.

 

It probably said something like "generally an athlete is in his prime in his late 20s" or something. Yeah thats generally an athletes's prime but prime in general means an a time of an athletes's peak performance in their sport. I'll give you a link/links to the definition i use.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/in-your-its-prime

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prime in this one the definition im referring to is the one where is says prime means the most active, thriving, or satisfying stage or period.

https://plainenglish.com/expressions/in-your-prime/

That being said late 90s Lewis was a level above pre Steward Lewis. He was faster(more athletic) in the early 90s but just wasn't nearly as skilled as he was later on. Thats why i don't see that Lewis as prime Lewis

 

Silly or not, that's what it could be seen as. Now I, myself, don't think a 23yo is in his physical prime. Now where prime came to equal peak performance...i don't know where that came from. But all one has to do is google the question. You'll get roughly the same answer from most sites.

Boxing prime isn't a things, it's just athletic prime and boxing fans decided to muck up the definition (usually due to who they cheer for), just like boxing fans did with P4P or ATG... everyone has their own definition or criteria...again, depending on who they root for.