"he's past prime", legit argument or just an excuse for a popular old champion

I thought it might be time for a discussion about this. We know that several times in boxing history an old past champion has come back to take on the new king of boxing, and usually has lost. Several examples:

Mike Tyson vs. Larry Holmes
Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali vs. Larry Holmes
Roy Jones Jr vs. Joe Calzaghe

Some people argue that the new guy would beat the older fighter even in his prime and this is just an excuse for the sentimental guy's choice of an older fighter, others like the old adage, in my prime I would have killed him.

But which is really true? Is the younger fighter really proving he is better than any version? Or is beating the older version not proof of anything?

I would have to say it varies from fight to fight. I think one good example of a fighter clearing having a different result against the same guy as a younger version was Roy Jones Jr over Bernard Hopkins in the early 90's versus the late 2000's, that was a clear cut case of the older fighter being much better in his prime.

My personal opinion to was that Mike Tyson might not get enough credit for the Larry Holmes fight, he was a only three years past his first defeat, and he went on to have competitive fights after that. And Tyson was the only man to stop him, chin is one thing that never really goes. This wasn't prime Holmes, but it wasn't THAT far past it either.

Muhammad Ali-Larry Holmes was a clear cut case of a fighter not being the same though. Ali was clearly riddled with Parkinson's at the time, he was not the same fighter. No way does he lose to Leon Sphinx early in his career, or Trevor Berbick. I think Ali's last great fight was clearly Earnie Shavers, after that he was done.

Joe Louis-Rocky Marciano is a little harder to gauge. My personal opinion is Louis was not the same fighter, its close to the Larry Holmes Mike Tyson situation, but I think Joe Louis was more shot than Larry Holmes when he went against Marciano.

What do you guys think? Is this past his prime excuse valid? Or is the young guy simply proving he is better more often?

 

Louis lost to Ezzard Charles during that stretch as well. And the guys he beat in the last several fights prior to Marciano from everything I can gather were not much past club fighter level. And he was beating them on points, whereas guys like that he probably knocks out earlier in his career.

Plus, three years prior he had two very difficult fights with Walcott. I actually think Louis was a little past his prime during those fights, earlier in his career he probably put Walcott away much easier. Joe Louis had over sixty fights, and his prime was probably the late 30's, whereas this was the late 40's and early 50's he was in there with Charles, Walcott, and Marciano. Its not to much of a stretch to say the late 30's version of Joe Louis might have beaten all those guys decisively.

Boxing is a brutal sport, I have to figure after you have so many fights there comes a point where you can't do it like you once could. Louis was probably a very old 37. Its not just age, but its how many fights you have. Some boxers are shot in their 30's, but if boxers are less active they can potentially fight into their 40's.

 

That's a typical arrogant response of someone who always makes like he is smarter than everyone else and can see things they can't. I happen to think it is a more complicated question sometimes than that.

Sometimes its obvious, like Ali against Larry Holmes. I don't think any rational person would argue that that was the same as 1965 Ali, or even early 70's Ali.

Other times it can be that the younger fighter is simply making him LOOK old, I think it is a science and knowing what to look for.

I think its pretty clear also for instance the Mike Tyson who lost to Lennox Lewis was not the Mike Tyson of the late 1980's. And I actually like Lennox Lewis, but clearly Tyson could no longer get inside rapidly like he once could.

 

Which begs the question why even take the fight? He was also taunting and showboating against Jones which I thought was classless especially if you are fighting a guy you know is shot. Only issue I have with Calzaghe, takes a fight against a fighter he knows is shot then runs for the hills. Why not fight Ward or Dawson? He never beat a great fighter at their peak. Hopkins was still a good fighter but not exactly prime. Eubank was close to the end as well. Lacy and Kessler I feel were a notch below. Maybe two notches below in the case of Lacy.