BoxRec

fighters who have primed late

heres a short list

jersey joe walcott- prime 33-38 years old

ron lyle - 32-35 years old

bernard hopkins- 38 years old peak fight

lennox lewis - 28-36

earnie shavers - 30-35


antonio tarver- prime 33-36

archie moore - their is only archie moore. no other fighter besides archie moore is in their prime at 40. he is the ultimate freak of nature. PRIME 36-42 years old





dick tiger- heres another guy mid thirties was his prime

jim braddock? he was 30 when he defeated max baer, so i would imagine that his prime was 29-30

Winky Wright......you got Lewis in there at 28-36. Winky's right in that median.

Larry Holmes and Carlos Monzon,I think they both won their titles when they were 29 and had many defenses.

Ceferino Garcia

Jim Watt won his world title at about 31... also Bob Fitzsimmons won his titles when 30+.
Dennis Andries was about mid-30s when he first won the world Lightheavy weight title... and he won it 3 times in all.

Joe Brown was about 30 when he won the Lightweight title and held it for a good few years.

Johnny Dundee won his world titles when he was in his early 30s.

Chalky Wright won his world title aged 29 after a 13 year career.

Some of these fighters including Moore may have reached the peak of their careers when they were past their peaks as Fighters.

Moore was probably at his peak in the late 40s and Joe Brown was said by many to have been a better boxer before he won the title.

I think people get confused the notion of a fighter's 'prime' and when they gain prominence.

A fighter's physical prime is basically 23-30. That's just a biological fact.

They've been many occasions when fighters have attained their greatest feats late in their careers-Jersey Joe Walcott, Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins etc.

But no-one could convince me the Lennox who beat Tyson was better then the Lewis who beat Briggs, or that Walcott was better against Marciano then in Louis 1, or that Hopkins was better against Trinidad then against Glen Johnson.

A fighter's prime and the 'prime' of their career are two different things . .

dempseyfire wrote:I think people get confused the notion of a fighter's 'prime' and when they gain prominence.

A fighter's physical prime is basically 23-30. That's just a biological fact.

They've been many occasions when fighters have attained their greatest feats late in their careers-Jersey Joe Walcott, Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins etc.

But no-one could convince me the Lennox who beat Tyson was better then the Lewis who beat Briggs, or that Walcott was better against Marciano then in Louis 1, or that Hopkins was better against Trinidad then against Glen Johnson.

A fighter's prime and the 'prime' of their career are two different things . .

Of course, a fighter can gain knowledge and experience that may make them a better all around fighter even though their actual physical skills have diminished. Having said that, I completely agree that the Lewis that beat Biggs was better than the one that beat Tyson, and Walcott was clearly a better fighter against Louis than against Marciano, etc.

walcott clearly bettter agianst louis than against marciano????

i disagree, i will admit that walcotts peak fight was against louis but he was still in his prime against charles and marciano. just like tysons peak fight was spinks. cause what ur saying john L is walcott was past his prime aainst charles and marciano which is clearly not true.

a better choice of words would be walcott-louis I was walcotts peak fight . and against charles and marciano, he didnt look much different.

as far as phyiscal skills diminishing, walcott became stronger late in the fight against marciano and weighed in around the exact same against charles and marciano as against louis. he also from what i saw had the same shuffle, reflexes, POWER, and actually had even more ring savvy

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:...as far as phyiscal skills diminishing, walcott became stronger late in the fight against marciano and weighed in around the exact same against charles and marciano as against louis. he also from what i saw had the same shuffle, reflexes, POWER, and actually had even more ring savvy

Damn, I forgot that we're in BoxRec fantasyland. Of course you're right. Walcott was just as good, probably even a better fighter in his last 2 fights at age 38 and 39 than he was 5 years earlier against Louis.

It's possible for a fighter to be better technically and mentally in his late 30's than he was in his mid 20's, but there's no way a guy that's 38 is going to have the same power or hand speed that he had at 25. A fighter's physical prime is in their mid to late 20's, however their technical and mental "prime" could occur at any age I suppose.

Rory McCloskey wrote:jim braddock? he was 30 when he defeated max baer, so i would imagine that his prime was 29-30

I'll give you $20 if you can go 20 posts without mentioning The Cinderella Man

iceman, ill bet 50 rory cant do it


iceman wrote

It's possible for a fighter to be better technically and mentally in his late 30's than he was in his mid 20's, but there's no way a guy that's 38 is going to have the same power or hand speed that he had at 25. A fighter's physical prime is in their mid to late 20's, however their technical and mental "prime" could occur at any age I suppose.

i disagree, there are many exceptions and walcott is one of them . when he was 25, he was just a journeyman. he didnt even become a contender until he was 33.


hey john L , u think walcott wasnt in his prime against ezzard and rocky????

why dont u watch his fights with marciano and charles and tell me if hes in his prime or not.
i guess guys like u arnt willing to except the fact that walcott is a lot like hopkins when it comes to age. so dont tell me that that the walcott that knocked out a prime ezzard charles, beat him again, then outboxed marciano for 13 rounds is past his prime.

if u watch the fights u will no what im talking about. u dont beat ezzard charles twice and almost beat marciano if ur not in ur prime.


but i guess according to u, were on box rec fantasy land. i guess the 25 year old walcott who was knocked out by al ettorre was better than the 37 year old walcott that knocked out ezzard charles and outboxed marciano.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:...if u watch the fights u will no what im talking about... i guess the 25 year old walcott who was knocked out by al ettorre was better than the 37 year old walcott that knocked out ezzard charles and outboxed marciano

Yes, I've seen those fights, and many others. In fact, I probably watched more fights before you were born than you have seen in your entire life. I do not think Walcott was as good against Rocky as he was against Louis. You don't agree with this opinion, and that's fine.

Not sure where you got the 25 year old Walcott comment. I just stated that Walcott was better against Louis than he was against Rocky in the last 2 fights of his career. It is possible that Walcotts performance against Rocky was more an indication of Rocky's abilities than Walcotts abilities at that stage of his career.

iceman21287 wrote:

Rory McCloskey wrote:jim braddock? he was 30 when he defeated max baer, so i would imagine that his prime was 29-30

I'll give you $20 if you can go 20 posts without mentioning The Cinderella Man

20? cmon man.. how about 5?

well i partly agree with you john L.

My opnion is walcotts best fight and peak was louis I. not just cause that was his best fight doesnt mean hes out of his prime, and walcotts next 2 best preformances were marciano I and charles III. tyson had a lot of title defenses in his prime but his peak was against spinks.

and iceman said fighters power and speed are at their best at 25 and i was saying thats not the case with all fighters.


john l wrote :

It is possible that Walcotts performance against Rocky was more an indication of Rocky's abilities than Walcotts abilities at that stage of his career.

what do u mean ?? do u mean marciano preformance was great or are u trying to say he had trouble with an old fighter??

it was a great preformance by both men.



well i dont know how old u are but ur probably right. u have seen a lot more fights than me. but i have plenty of time to catch up and im lucky enough to have many manyboxin tapes in my porch( so i have caught up alot for lost time) , bought by me and given to me by m grandfather.


how come people keep sayin to me every time i debate ive been watching fights before u were born. honestly that doesnt mean jack shit, because just cause i hadvnt seen the fight live doesnt mean i havnt seen it. the only difference is seeing it live is more of a memorable moment than seeing it on tape.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:...just cause i hadvnt seen the fight live doesnt mean i havnt seen it. the only difference is seeing it live is more of a memorable moment than seeing it on tape.

For analyzing a performance it's actually better to see it in a replay, especially where you can replay and slo mo the action. Unfortunately, when we watch fights we tend to be a bit biased for own favorites, and it's difficult to truly assess a fighters skills. A good example is the Klitchko's. For the Klit fans, they seem to be able to justify every loss and every short coming, and for the Klit detractors, they amplify every loss and every short coming. Usually, the truth is somewhere in between.

Just keep in kind that when it comes to mythical matchups, there are no facts, just opinions. No matter how much I may want to believe that my favorite was the best, there's no way to prove it.

Of course, the easiest opinion to defend might be that John L Sullivan was the greatest HW ever, because there is no recorded evidence to the contrary. I like that.

No one can take away the greatness of any of these guys. Even the ones that you or I may not regard as "great". At least they fought their best and left their mark on history. And no one can take that from them.

Always on the level. John L. Sullivan

In the EXTREMELY unlikely event Sonny was actually the age he gave he was still at least 30 when he won the title and yes I do recognize that he had probably hit his prime a couple of years earlier. However there is no way in hell anyone is going to convince me he was born in 1932.