What constitutes as a boxer being in his prime or past his prime?

A visible decline in their abilities. For example, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao. You could clearly see a gradual decline.

NOT an example is Roy Jones vs Tarver 2. People say there was an instantaneous massive decline as an excuse. I don't buy it.

 

It's very subjective and probably something you can only truly assess once a career is over. Quoted above, someone said a fighter's prime is their physical prime but I think that's way too simplistic. For me a boxer's prime should take into account:

1. Physical condition and ability
2. Technical development
3. Motivation
4. Experience

In terms of a timeline point one comes first, followed by point two. Motivation probably dips before experience peaks - logical speaking - in their very last fight.

The point in a career where the physical and technical ability are still high (those factors are linked because the body needs still to be able to allow the fighter to execute skills), before motivation has started to diminish - with experience from previous bouts to draw on - and allied to a victory over an opponent considered to be good enough to face comparison to the boxer in question, is where I would draw the line.

 

It's pretty easy to define but not quantify.

When the majority of people consider that the current version of a fighter would lose to a previous version, they are past prime.

If you are looking for an identifiable quality, I agree with cst80 in saying that the first noticable signs that a fighter is past prime are a drop off in hand speed and volume. (Although, it is possible that a fighter loses hand speed and volume but maintains their likelihood to win against a former version of themself e.g. Mayweather)

 

When Hearns blasted out an uninterested Duran when Roberto was 33 I thought he's probably done. But to come back and beat a man , Barkley , who knocked out Hearns almost 5 years later was astonishing. I think a beating is far worse than a quick KO. See Hagler Mugabi

 

Theoretically when they are physically their best. We don't train them or spar throughout their career. So as fans, in retrospect, "prime" will almost always refer to their peak results. Very few but some fighters put together their best form and results at the end of their career somehow be it newfound strategy, work ethic, body transformation, etc. You can't put a uniform age on it as some have a great prime in their early 20's only to both show deteriorated form and relative failed results in their early 20's. Also, "form" can be overstated as everybody's form can look great when they are winning fights, hence the classic "oh but he's on a 3-fight-KO-streak of so-and-so and so-and-so" while previously being on a 3-fight-KO'd-streak against the better opponents...

 

So why did people say Chisora is past prime? faded?

Where has he slowed down? Is he not punching as hard?

Does he look out of shape?

 

reaction time is what drops off first. when they start to lose that split second in reaction time, they are past their prime. nobody in their late 30s is prime, even if they are still winning, they are physically past prime.

 

Nigel benn