How can we tell if a UFC fighter is in his prime?

Win fight= In prime
Lose fight= Out of prime
 
Really can only tell after their career is either over or nearly over. It's really just the 2-3 years where they were at their most competitive level regardless of record. On here though, it usually just breaks down to the times between losses. Then people blame those losses on not being prime.
 
when he loses he is out of prime and was honestly never really that good
 
Like you said, there are a lot of factors, so it's a complicated topic. Some people reduce it down to wins and losses, but often you can tell a guys lost a step even though he's still winning.

Fedor was noticeably slower and less technical by the time of the Arlovski fight. GSP was slower, less explosive, and had worse cardio after his acl injuries. Shogun still won some key fights but was noticeably worse, again, after acl injuries.

Cain and JDS murdered the shit out of each other in their trilogy, neither guy has looked the same since.
 
You can't know until they get worse. Prime means best they can be. Nobody knows how good something will be until it's past that point. Everyone's prime is different and there's no fixed stats on being in your prime. Contrary to popular belief in this board, prime does not mean "unbeatable" or the best compared to the rest. Even the worst fighter on the planet has a fighting prime but he's still the worst
 
Is the fighter winning?
Yes : Prime
No: Garbage , Can , never really was that good.

The 2nd part of it is pure cynicism.

Prime Fedor: beating Big Nog, Cro Cop, Coleman, Randleman, Herring
Past prime Fedor: losing to guys who were in Pride with him when he was King.

Prime Anderson Silva: destroying Franklin, Vitor, Leben, Forrest, Irvin
Past prime Anderson: too slow to stand with Bisping, Weidman, Brunson

Prime BJ: destroying Kenflo, Diego, Joe Daddy, Pulver, Hughes (1st time), holding his own with GSP (1st time)
Past prime BJ: getting smashed by Denis Siver
 
Prime is only established in hindsight for people like us to talk about on messageboards
I disagree.

It was obvious that Fedor was in his prime that night against Cro Cop. That Cro Cop was in his prime against Fedor.

Conor was prime against Aldo and Alvarez.

That Ubereem was never going to get better than he was after the K1 grand prix.

That GSP reached a pinnacle that night at UFC 100 against Alves.

Some guys, you just know. Most guys have a finite amount of potential both skill-wise and athletically. When you see both completely or almost completely tapped, you know they're in their prime. You see this happen in great fighters where you just know.

Other guys.. like Jon Jones, you don't know. As good as he ever was, he still had so much potential to be untapped. Could develop great boxing with that 84" reach. Could get 1 punch KO power with that fast twitch fibre. Could put on 50 lbs of muscle and go full Ubereem onto that 6'4 84" frame. Near infinite potential. Incredible athlete.
 
Last edited:
You can only assess that after a fighter's career, or at least after they have hit the point of no return in terms of decline where it is obvious there isn't going to be another rise to the levels you've already seen (like with current Fedor for example).

You can also apply some rules of thumb regarding age, miles, etc...to estimate where that point is likely to be for a fighter...but some fighters truly do peak at unusual times so you can only ultimately tell in time.
 
You really can't tell, because it doesn't really exist.

Subjective foolery. Like p4p. Ugh
 
Like you said, there are a lot of factors, so it's a complicated topic. Some people reduce it down to wins and losses, but often you can tell a guys lost a step even though he's still winning.

Fedor was noticeably slower and less technical by the time of the Arlovski fight. GSP was slower, less explosive, and had worse cardio after his acl injuries. Shogun still won some key fights but was noticeably worse, again, after acl injuries.

Cain and JDS murdered the shit out of each other in their trilogy, neither guy has looked the same since.

sample size in MMA makes it difficult too. in boxing when a guy has 85 fights over 14 years, the patterns are easier to see. in basketball when a guy plays 1000 games over 12 years, the patterns are easier to see. and an NFL lineman plays some variation of the same 7 seconds about 14,000 times in his career - when he starts breaking down, it becomes obvious.

with the highest level fighters fighting every 6 or 10 months (and let's face it, we're not debating when a journeyman lost his prime - only top caliber fighters) the sample size becomes 5 fights in 3 years. probably against guys who specialize in very different skill sets.

nope. as a few guys on page 1 said, it's only through revisionist history that we choose to define prime.
 
if a fighter's age is a whole number greater than 1 whose only factors are 1 and itself... he's in his prime.
 
sample size in MMA makes it difficult too. in boxing when a guy has 85 fights over 14 years, the patterns are easier to see. in basketball when a guy plays 1000 games over 12 years, the patterns are easier to see. and an NFL lineman plays some variation of the same 7 seconds about 14,000 times in his career - when he starts breaking down, it becomes obvious.

with the highest level fighters fighting every 6 or 10 months (and let's face it, we're not debating when a journeyman lost his prime - only top caliber fighters) the sample size becomes 5 fights in 3 years. probably against guys who specialize in very different skill sets.

nope. as a few guys on page 1 said, it's only through revisionist history that we choose to define prime.

Actually, it’s just history. Not revisionist history.

History becomes most accurate when you have as much information as possible.

Of course there is plenty of room for personal opinion!
1. Columbus was a great, brave hero.
2. Columbus was a rapist and thief who enslaved and committed genocide.
 
Actually, it’s just history. Not revisionist history.

History becomes most accurate when you have as much information as possible.

Of course there is plenty of room for personal opinion!
1. Columbus was a great, brave hero.
2. Columbus was a rapist and thief who enslaved and committed genocide.
is 'colorful subjective history' a good happy medium? :)
 
Back
Top