BoxRec

Is it different for different weight classes?

Is it different for different styles? (slugger, stylist etc)

It's different depending on weight class, experience, style, skill, punishment received, biology, genetics, luck with injury, discipline, motivation, coaches, even personal life. Realistically a majority of primes are for a few years somewhere between 25-35 but many have theirs before then or after then. Some primes last a while career while others last just a couple of years.

As above, no rule and plenty of outliers but generally early to mid twenties for the little tiny boxers moving up pro rata to mid to late-mid thirties for heavies

Yes to all the above.

Also what style of fighter they are/were too.
The greats who had longevity were able to adapt their style to compensate for the deterioration in their reflexes, or for their deficits when they had to move up a weight such as lacking the punch power advantage they had at a lower weight. They used their experience and ring craft more then such as Bernard Hopkins, Ali, Mayweather etc.

Lower weights rely more on speed and volume so this favours youth - the heavies today are slower and rely more on size and power so early to mid 30s is not unusual.

Duran was really something. An all-action aggressive fighter who became a counter-puncher. Went up the weights and had greater longevity than all of his main rivals. Amazing for a man who started beating world class opponents at 126.

I think the length of their am career or volume of fights they had as an am can play a real part in this. Quite a few pros seem to fizzle out after heavy volumed am careers despite not being particularly old

Yes, some great points.

Style is a huge factor - for me unless the fighter adapts (e.g. Marco Antonio Barrera) - I feel a come forward agressive fighter often loses something upon that first defeat, no matter what their age. I see that as a rule of thumb - classic example I see of that was John Murray - as soon as he lost, he lost that belief he could walk through anything and was never quite the same. Mike Tyson again, never the same post Douglas. It also gives the opponent an edge seeing these strong guys getting pushed back. Ricky Hatton another one, never quite the same after his first loss - particularly if it is a KO. E.g. Carl Froch did not get KO'd in his first loss, so less of an impact.

You have two types of good defensive fighters - you have those who rely on athleticism and reflexes in the main - again they typical I would say range from 28-32 as being slightly over the hill - UNLESS they adapt. RJJ and yes, Sugar Ray Leonard two examples of fighters that struggled to adapt with the ticking clock of time and both actually only in their early 30s when this happened.

Those that stay in the game longer - typically are those who are super relaxed in the ring, very good defensively but its usually a "stay in the pocket" type of defence, not relying on reflexes, handspeed and athleticism to get them out of trouble - guys like Hopkins, Mayweather, Whittikar and Duran (who adapted his style) also, to a lesser standard than those ATG's but Sven Ottke looked as good in his final defence as he did in his first defence.

Sure you will get the freaks who will remain athletic as anything despite advancing in years - Manny Pacquiao being one, but again was he the same fighter after that first KO loss? And you'll get some who have clearly "lost a yard" but still too good for most - e.g. Shane Mosely when his handspeed had gone.

Manny Pacquiao is a true ATG .. I personally place him above Mayweather and Roy Jones as the best fighter of my lifetime.

*It's hard to find any modern ATG without a high suspicion of PED use.

El Radar turned pro at 15, world champ at 17 at 140. Pretty much washed by the time he was 25 which is crazy. He’s obviously an outlier. Potentially the single greatest outlier we’ve had.

I absolutely agree with regards to long am careers, Paddy Barnes went to three Olympics and never really got going as a pro. Carl Frampton had a good Am career but didn’t get to any international tournaments I don’t think? But Carl lasted well as a pro and through three weights.

Pretty Boy Floyd Vs Money May is a great example of adapting your style, he really figured it out and always kept himself in elite condition.

Weight class obviously matters. It’s not rare to see a 23 year old Japanese light fly champ. Wlad Klitschko seemed to fight on forever cos he was fuckin massive, didn’t take risks and clearly lived the life. The Big Chess Playing Bore. He was out paddle boarding when Shannon Briggs caught up with him and I remember thinking “if I was world heavyweight champ you wouldn’t catch me titting about in some pond” but I guess it worked for him.

And of course lifestyle, Tyson took too much Charlie and just generally lived a bonkers life what would catch up with anyone. Sweet Pea loved a stripe as well. Hastened the decline. Hatton, too, he’s been on record saying all the ballooning shortened his career and he’s perfectly happy about it, didn’t even want a long one.

stujones wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 09:21 Yes, some great points.

Style is a huge factor - for me unless the fighter adapts (e.g. Marco Antonio Barrera) - I feel a come forward agressive fighter often loses something upon that first defeat, no matter what their age. I see that as a rule of thumb - classic example I see of that was John Murray - as soon as he lost, he lost that belief he could walk through anything and was never quite the same. Mike Tyson again, never the same post Douglas. It also gives the opponent an edge seeing these strong guys getting pushed back. Ricky Hatton another one, never quite the same after his first loss - particularly if it is a KO. E.g. Carl Froch did not get KO'd in his first loss, so less of an impact.

You have two types of good defensive fighters - you have those who rely on athleticism and reflexes in the main - again they typical I would say range from 28-32 as being slightly over the hill - UNLESS they adapt. RJJ and yes, Sugar Ray Leonard two examples of fighters that struggled to adapt with the ticking clock of time and both actually only in their early 30s when this happened.

Those that stay in the game longer - typically are those who are super relaxed in the ring, very good defensively but its usually a "stay in the pocket" type of defence, not relying on reflexes, handspeed and athleticism to get them out of trouble - guys like Hopkins, Mayweather, Whittikar and Duran (who adapted his style) also, to a lesser standard than those ATG's but Sven Ottke looked as good in his final defence as he did in his first defence.

Sure you will get the freaks who will remain athletic as anything despite advancing in years - Manny Pacquiao being one, but again was he the same fighter after that first KO loss? And you'll get some who have clearly "lost a yard" but still too good for most - e.g. Shane Mosely when his handspeed had gone.

James Toney exemplifies this. He was about 7 years and 5 stone past his best when he beat that Kazakh who’s name escapes me, Joirov?

JT may have been the most relaxed boxer ever, just seemed like he wasn’t even that arsed being there some nights

James Toney is a great example, Larry Holmes and Mayweather also

Heavyweight - 34
Super middleweight - 29
Featherweight - 27
Flyweight - 25

Delta Jay wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 17:27

stujones wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 09:21 Yes, some great points.

Style is a huge factor - for me unless the fighter adapts (e.g. Marco Antonio Barrera) - I feel a come forward agressive fighter often loses something upon that first defeat, no matter what their age. I see that as a rule of thumb - classic example I see of that was John Murray - as soon as he lost, he lost that belief he could walk through anything and was never quite the same. Mike Tyson again, never the same post Douglas. It also gives the opponent an edge seeing these strong guys getting pushed back. Ricky Hatton another one, never quite the same after his first loss - particularly if it is a KO. E.g. Carl Froch did not get KO'd in his first loss, so less of an impact.

You have two types of good defensive fighters - you have those who rely on athleticism and reflexes in the main - again they typical I would say range from 28-32 as being slightly over the hill - UNLESS they adapt. RJJ and yes, Sugar Ray Leonard two examples of fighters that struggled to adapt with the ticking clock of time and both actually only in their early 30s when this happened.

Those that stay in the game longer - typically are those who are super relaxed in the ring, very good defensively but its usually a "stay in the pocket" type of defence, not relying on reflexes, handspeed and athleticism to get them out of trouble - guys like Hopkins, Mayweather, Whittikar and Duran (who adapted his style) also, to a lesser standard than those ATG's but Sven Ottke looked as good in his final defence as he did in his first defence.

Sure you will get the freaks who will remain athletic as anything despite advancing in years - Manny Pacquiao being one, but again was he the same fighter after that first KO loss? And you'll get some who have clearly "lost a yard" but still too good for most - e.g. Shane Mosely when his handspeed had gone.

James Toney exemplifies this. He was about 7 years and 5 stone past his best when he beat that Kazakh who’s name escapes me, Joirov?

JT may have been the most relaxed boxer ever, just seemed like he wasn’t even that arsed being there some nights

Toney was a proven drug cheat.... twice. That's how he beat Jirov.

When your talking about the super athletes , its hard to compare , skill levels , picked opponents , come into it , but by and large i would say , 23 --- 27 ,. You can't teach youth , age catches up at different levels but catch up it will,

coneye wrote: ↑09 Nov 2023, 17:53 When your talking about the super athletes , its hard to compare , skill levels , picked opponents , come into it , but by and large i would say , 23 --- 27 ,. You can't teach youth , age catches up at different levels but catch up it will,

I believe every athlete excels at different times/ages. But a general rule in my experience is an athlete is at their flexible and naturally most talented peak between 18 and 23. Between 23 and 30 they have to become more disciplined to maintain that talent and benefit from physical strength as one. Between 30 and 36 they are at there physically strongest. That's a pretty generic guide imo. Having said that my theory gets blown out of the water when you consider Dennis Andries,Glen Johnson and Bernard Hopkins,who all arguably had the best spells of their careers in their early 40's.

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Nov 2023, 08:55 Duran was really something. An all-action aggressive fighter who became a counter-puncher. Went up the weights and had greater longevity than all of his main rivals. Amazing for a man who started beating world class opponents at 126.

Excellent example amazing fighter
Another example was MAB. On his way up was full of early KOs and nasty body shots. But he adjusted his style, improved his defence and started utilising his jab and footwork more after a certain point in his career.

75 fights only 7 losses. Still got his faculties intact after facing numerous hellacious punchers. Incredible.

No single rule applies. Way too many variables.

Bizarre that people think heavies are in their prime in their mid to late 30s. You're getting old at that point. Perhaps it's because everyone in the top 10 is in that age range, partly because they turn pro so late nowadays and partly because the modern division moves at a glacial pace. They're not in their prime at nearly 40. Many of them hadn't even made their pro debut when they were in their physical prime.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑11 Nov 2023, 08:12 Bizarre that people think heavies are in their prime in their mid to late 30s. You're getting old at that point. Perhaps it's because everyone in the top 10 is in that age range, partly because they turn pro so late nowadays and partly because the modern division moves at a glacial pace. They're not in their prime at nearly 40. Many of them hadn't even made their pro debut when they were in their physical prime.

Heavies move their career at a much slower rate than other weight classes so don't usually have the quality of resume until they're 30+ to face credible opponents. I do wonder if that plays a part. Some of those who did face world class competition younger: 30 year old AJ, Whyte and Fury definitely beat the current versions of themselves. Parker was also better about 5 years ago.

joshj909 wrote: ↑11 Nov 2023, 08:25

Billy Tully wrote: ↑11 Nov 2023, 08:12 Bizarre that people think heavies are in their prime in their mid to late 30s. You're getting old at that point. Perhaps it's because everyone in the top 10 is in that age range, partly because they turn pro so late nowadays and partly because the modern division moves at a glacial pace. They're not in their prime at nearly 40. Many of them hadn't even made their pro debut when they were in their physical prime.

Heavies move their career at a much slower rate than other weight classes so don't usually have the quality of resume until they're 30+ to face credible opponents. I do wonder if that plays a part. Some of those who did face world class competition younger: 30 year old AJ, Whyte and Fury definitely beat the current versions of themselves. Parker was also better about 5 years ago.

Parker has definitely declined, crazy to think he was a world champ 7 years ago

Delta Jay wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 17:23 El Radar turned pro at 15, world champ at 17 at 140. Pretty much washed by the time he was 25 which is crazy. He’s obviously an outlier. Potentially the single greatest outlier we’ve had.

I absolutely agree with regards to long am careers, Paddy Barnes went to three Olympics and never really got going as a pro. Carl Frampton had a good Am career but didn’t get to any international tournaments I don’t think? But Carl lasted well as a pro and through three weights.

Pretty Boy Floyd Vs Money May is a great example of adapting your style, he really figured it out and always kept himself in elite condition.

Weight class obviously matters. It’s not rare to see a 23 year old Japanese light fly champ. Wlad Klitschko seemed to fight on forever cos he was fuckin massive, didn’t take risks and clearly lived the life. The Big Chess Playing Bore. He was out paddle boarding when Shannon Briggs caught up with him and I remember thinking “if I was world heavyweight champ you wouldn’t catch me titting about in some pond” but I guess it worked for him.

And of course lifestyle, Tyson took too much Charlie and just generally lived a bonkers life what would catch up with anyone. Sweet Pea loved a stripe as well. Hastened the decline. Hatton, too, he’s been on record saying all the ballooning shortened his career and he’s perfectly happy about it, didn’t even want a long one.

This made me laugh OL for some reason..,
What WOULD you be doing DJ ? And what ya got against paddle-boarding..?!
Look pretty fun relaxation to me..

skanksta wrote: ↑11 Nov 2023, 12:42

Delta Jay wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 17:23 El Radar turned pro at 15, world champ at 17 at 140. Pretty much washed by the time he was 25 which is crazy. He’s obviously an outlier. Potentially the single greatest outlier we’ve had.

I absolutely agree with regards to long am careers, Paddy Barnes went to three Olympics and never really got going as a pro. Carl Frampton had a good Am career but didn’t get to any international tournaments I don’t think? But Carl lasted well as a pro and through three weights.

Pretty Boy Floyd Vs Money May is a great example of adapting your style, he really figured it out and always kept himself in elite condition.

Weight class obviously matters. It’s not rare to see a 23 year old Japanese light fly champ. Wlad Klitschko seemed to fight on forever cos he was fuckin massive, didn’t take risks and clearly lived the life. The Big Chess Playing Bore. He was out paddle boarding when Shannon Briggs caught up with him and I remember thinking “if I was world heavyweight champ you wouldn’t catch me titting about in some pond” but I guess it worked for him.

And of course lifestyle, Tyson took too much Charlie and just generally lived a bonkers life what would catch up with anyone. Sweet Pea loved a stripe as well. Hastened the decline. Hatton, too, he’s been on record saying all the ballooning shortened his career and he’s perfectly happy about it, didn’t even want a long one.

This made me laugh OL for some reason..,
What WOULD you be doing DJ ? And what ya got against paddle-boarding..?!
Look pretty fun relaxation to me..

I dunno man. There’s some leisure activities what I just don’t like. Paddle Boarding, indoor climbing, kayaking or even table top miniature gaming. Fukken Table Tennis. Just can’t be doing them things as a big man I fully accept that this is an internalised thing, just my small minded views.

I fully admit that these are bigger and better men than me but if *I* was world heavyweight champ (I have not and will never have what it takes) I’d be doing a Tyson in vegas. “Like grapes” as a wise man said.

All to do with weight class, age and experience.
For example.
I love watching Loma but,
I never saw the best of him because it was before he turned pro. The best of Loma was years before he turned pro.

Heavies.. Ali is a great discussion. Was he better when he fought Cooper, Liston, Patterson?
I’d say he was. I might be in the minority though.

Lower weight classes. Could be wrong but, Loma aside, tend to go pro early. To earn. Might be why they peak earlier.

There are exceptions to every rule of course.

The smaller boxers tend to peak in their 20's as the competition in those weight classes is heavily reliant on speed. Larger fighters tend to peak in their 30's.

stujones wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 09:21Style is a huge factor - for me unless the fighter adapts (e.g. Marco Antonio Barrera) - I feel a come forward agressive fighter often loses something upon that first defeat, no matter what their age. I see that as a rule of thumb - classic example I see of that was John Murray - as soon as he lost, he lost that belief he could walk through anything and was never quite the same. Mike Tyson again, never the same post Douglas. It also gives the opponent an edge seeing these strong guys getting pushed back. Ricky Hatton another one, never quite the same after his first loss - particularly if it is a KO. E.g. Carl Froch did not get KO'd in his first loss, so less of an impact.

Good observation.

Frazier is another that fits the pattern. Benn is an example of someone who adapted.

Was trying to think of an exception – maybe Mancini? Who had his best performances after getting stopped by Arguello (although had a very short prime overall).