Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 17:13
Cuadras? Guy looked great against Gallito, a p4p-caliber fighter.
BoxRec
Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Page 2 of 3
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 17:43
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 17:50
Might be the case. He's been looking outsized at SFW. Needed to move back down after the Cuadras fight. I'm anxious to see him fight again. I'm just unsure how anyone thinks Cuadras is past his prime? Honestly, I thought the Cuadras/Estrada fight was razor-thin.Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018, 17:43Maybe Chocolatito ain't exited his prime yet. Maybe with him, it's the case he just moved up more than he could handle?
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 19:09
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 21:01
Brook
Bellew
Porter
Groves
Bellew
Porter
Groves
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 04:10
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 04:27
Donaire would be my first thought. He's fighting Frampton on April 21st and the winner will probably be back in line for title shots.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 09:54
Maybe the scratching of head is confusion of how prime is measured.?are you measuring prime as the age of a fighter? Or the fighters time when at a certain peak or even simply his popularity? For me Porters peaked... I seriously can't see him recapturing his peak. . As a Boxer they require a reason to focus to keep fighting an excuse even.. Usually in the form of a knockdown a tko or injustice on a score card.. Porter was beaten twice in his prime.. But nonetheless he's still a formidable force..
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 11:20
Porter has peaked because he has just come into his prime. I think the version that lost to Brook would've lost wide to Thurman. Porter was beaten twice, but he was competitive against Brook. Against Thurman, he arguably won. You're 100% wrong naming Porter here.ajwesty13 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 09:54Maybe the scratching of head is confusion of how prime is measured.?are you measuring prime as the age of a fighter? Or the fighters time when at a certain peak or even simply his popularity? For me Porters peaked... I seriously can't see him recapturing his peak. . As a Boxer they require a reason to focus to keep fighting an excuse even.. Usually in the form of a knockdown a tko or injustice on a score card.. Porter was beaten twice in his prime.. But nonetheless he's still a formidable force..
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 11:56
Porter wasn't at his best when he beat Alexander. He's peak prime now. Doesn't matter that he lost to Thurman, a p4p best, like Mexi said, he arguably won.Mexi-Box wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 11:20Porter has peaked because he has just come into his prime. I think the version that lost to Brook would've lost wide to Thurman. Porter was beaten twice, but he was competitive against Brook. Against Thurman, he arguably won. You're 100% wrong naming Porter here.ajwesty13 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 09:54Maybe the scratching of head is confusion of how prime is measured.?are you measuring prime as the age of a fighter? Or the fighters time when at a certain peak or even simply his popularity? For me Porters peaked... I seriously can't see him recapturing his peak. . As a Boxer they require a reason to focus to keep fighting an excuse even.. Usually in the form of a knockdown a tko or injustice on a score card.. Porter was beaten twice in his prime.. But nonetheless he's still a formidable force..
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 12:05
I don't understand how 2 people discussing differences that one is a 100 percent wrong but anyway..Mexi-Box wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 11:20Porter has peaked because he has just come into his prime. I think the version that lost to Brook would've lost wide to Thurman. Porter was beaten twice, but he was competitive against Brook. Against Thurman, he arguably won. You're 100% wrong naming Porter here.ajwesty13 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 09:54Maybe the scratching of head is confusion of how prime is measured.?are you measuring prime as the age of a fighter? Or the fighters time when at a certain peak or even simply his popularity? For me Porters peaked... I seriously can't see him recapturing his peak. . As a Boxer they require a reason to focus to keep fighting an excuse even.. Usually in the form of a knockdown a tko or injustice on a score card.. Porter was beaten twice in his prime.. But nonetheless he's still a formidable force..
I've named porter as I presently believe porter is NOT in his prime anymore . Another variation on judging prime is the last opposition faced and that doesn't make good reading for someone you think in his prime... Boxing is about evolving your skill and I doubt very much he has the skill set to redeveloped his style to maintain his prime.. I think he's peaked and not in his prime...
Maybe this issue is not about the OP But how we define prime?
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 12:26
So between what period would you say Porter was in his prime.ajwesty13 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 12:05
I don't understand how 2 people discussing differences that one is a 100 percent wrong but anyway..
I've named porter as I presently believe porter is NOT in his prime anymore . Another variation on judging prime is the last opposition faced and that doesn't make good reading for someone you think in his prime... Boxing is about evolving your skill and I doubt very much he has the skill set to redeveloped his style to maintain his prime.. I think he's peaked and not in his prime...
Maybe this issue is not about the OP But how we define prime?
Pre-Alexander I take it?
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 12:40
absolutely not for me he was still in his prime when he lost to Thurman but I think today he's not in his prime anymore ... But still as the OP asks remains relevant in boxing..Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 12:26So between what period would you say Porter was in his prime.ajwesty13 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018, 12:05
I don't understand how 2 people discussing differences that one is a 100 percent wrong but anyway..
I've named porter as I presently believe porter is NOT in his prime anymore . Another variation on judging prime is the last opposition faced and that doesn't make good reading for someone you think in his prime... Boxing is about evolving your skill and I doubt very much he has the skill set to redeveloped his style to maintain his prime.. I think he's peaked and not in his prime...
Maybe this issue is not about the OP But how we define prime?
Pre-Alexander I take it?
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 11:59
Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018, 11:49Frampton literally has beaten EVERYONE he has gotten in the ring with. Even the one guy who beat him.Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 12:18 Broner is past his peak, doesn't matter about age, he did start at a young age to be fair. He's reached his best.. We'll never see the best Broner again.
Frampton is a bit of a throw up, i admit. I think we need to see how he fairs against Donaire. His last opponent, that including inactivity, which wasn't his fault, maybe have been a cause. But I guess time till eventually tell with him.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 16:40
Yeh, that's like sayin Briggs has won his last 10 odd fights. He must be in his prime..world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018, 11:49Frampton literally has beaten EVERYONE he has gotten in the ring with. Even the one guy who beat him.Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 12:18 Broner is past his peak, doesn't matter about age, he did start at a young age to be fair. He's reached his best.. We'll never see the best Broner again.
Frampton is a bit of a throw up, i admit. I think we need to see how he fairs against Donaire. His last opponent, that including inactivity, which wasn't his fault, maybe have been a cause. But I guess time till eventually tell with him.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 16:47
Pacquiao is the stand out answer for me.
He's clearly several years past his best, but his name still has cachet & he would fight the best given the opportunity to do so & the best would love to have his name on their resumes.
He's clearly several years past his best, but his name still has cachet & he would fight the best given the opportunity to do so & the best would love to have his name on their resumes.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 16:59
Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 16:40Yeh, that's like sayin Briggs has won his last 10 odd fights. He must be in his prime..world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.
thats what people get mixed up just because you winning you still in prime. Which isn't the case.Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 17:01
In the case of Briggs he keeps winning because they scrape the bottom of the barrel to find stiffs for him to knock over. Anybody in the Top 40 would kick Briggs' ass, most would stop him.world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 16:59Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 16:40Yeh, that's like sayin Briggs has won his last 10 odd fights. He must be in his prime..world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59
Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 18:55
Roy Jones need to quit. Rught now!!
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 20:05
He's not even 31 yet. There is nothing that says that he isn't in his prime. He's the top of his division and already beat the top guy in his division. In his only loss, he wasn't even dominated.world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018, 11:49Frampton literally has beaten EVERYONE he has gotten in the ring with. Even the one guy who beat him.Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 12:18 Broner is past his peak, doesn't matter about age, he did start at a young age to be fair. He's reached his best.. We'll never see the best Broner again.
Frampton is a bit of a throw up, i admit. I think we need to see how he fairs against Donaire. His last opponent, that including inactivity, which wasn't his fault, maybe have been a cause. But I guess time till eventually tell with him.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 14 Jan 2018, 20:07
We're talking about Frampton who is fighting the best of his class. What is saying that he is past prime? There's no reason for that. Because he lost a close decision to to Cruz who he beat just one fight before?Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 16:40Yeh, that's like sayin Briggs has won his last 10 odd fights. He must be in his prime..world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 15 Jan 2018, 20:20
The Frampton that fought Horacio Garcia isnt the Frampton that beat Quigg. It has nothing to do with age it moreso when was he at HIS best. ANd its not nowwatching Frampton last two fights isnt the same as his against Gonzales or Quigg to me he looks slower and gets hit more. Prime isnt an age thing.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 20:05He's not even 31 yet. There is nothing that says that he isn't in his prime. He's the top of his division and already beat the top guy in his division. In his only loss, he wasn't even dominated.world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 15 Jan 2018, 21:39
Maybe because Quigg is better than Garcia? Most fighters get hit more and looks slower against better and faster competition.world ranked wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018, 20:20The Frampton that fought Horacio Garcia isnt the Frampton that beat Quigg. It has nothing to do with age it moreso when was he at HIS best. ANd its not nowwatching Frampton last two fights isnt the same as his against Gonzales or Quigg to me he looks slower and gets hit more. Prime isnt an age thing.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 20:05He's not even 31 yet. There is nothing that says that he isn't in his prime. He's the top of his division and already beat the top guy in his division. In his only loss, he wasn't even dominated.world ranked wrote: ↑14 Jan 2018, 11:59
Just because your have beat everyone doesnt mean your still in prime.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 16 Jan 2018, 20:23
You can make that case if the Quigg fight happened after the Garcia fight but I don't see the same fighter.IKSRTFO wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018, 21:39Maybe because Quigg is better than Garcia? Most fighters get hit more and looks slower against better and faster competition.world ranked wrote: ↑15 Jan 2018, 20:20The Frampton that fought Horacio Garcia isnt the Frampton that beat Quigg. It has nothing to do with age it moreso when was he at HIS best. ANd its not nowwatching Frampton last two fights isnt the same as his against Gonzales or Quigg to me he looks slower and gets hit more. Prime isnt an age thing.
Re: Active Boxers, Still Relevant, But Past Their Prime?
Posted: 25 Feb 2018, 00:02