Except you can't cherry pick where a fighter's prime ends.
Fedor was only 32-33 when he got mauled by Werdum, Big Foot and TRT Dan.
BJ started losing at 31 and is 1-7-1 in his last 9...
Aldo got murked by McGregor at the young age of 28, and is now on a 1-3 skid. Are you telling me 28 is past prime?
The only one with a reasonable excuse is Silva, who was 38 when he got flattened by Teh Chris.
They don't magically get past their prime, they just meet better fighters and the aura fades.
You seem to be leaving "competition mileage" out of the equation. As best I can tell... you are time stamping 38 as an acceptable age to be out of your prime... however anything lower is not acceptable to you.
You are wrong to draw a line & say that 38 years old (or any particular age) is the one & only point that is acceptable terms in which someone can be classified as "Beyond their prime." Every individual is different & they have their individual reasons for peaking at certain times.
FFS... you don't think Fedor had enough wars to accept that at whatever age he declined is due to the hard road behind him? You're going to dismiss those wins of his that were against higher level of competition, some of which moved on to become UFC champs or once were. You think you can say that Aldo hadn't taken a legitimate amount of damage prior to his losses to justify him being beyond his prime no matter what the age? I disagree, & I find your comment on "cherry picking" a prime age to be inaccurate.
Now BJ is really an individual case within himself... he sometimes just doesn't give a f*ck & sometimes he shows up to fight & sometimes he doesn't. Outside of that strangeness... he also jumped multiple divisions to fight. The Nick Diaz & Rory Mcdonald losses were 2 divisions above his.
Outside of that, Frankie obviously had his number... so that's one guy... in his weight who was responsible for 3 of his losses... & 2 that were multiple divisions above his. So Maybe he was in his prime & just got beat... but it doesn't change his past accomplishments by any means.
The point of my post that you're responding to is that
taking losses like that does not change your accomplishments of the past. You seem to be saying that it has to do with the level of competition getting better that they started losing. I would agree that it is true that "more people" are more well rounded fighters in this day & age than the early days... however BJ beating prime Matt Hughes at UFC 46 can't be explained in your logic... as well as many of the others he has wins over. Many of them would be at the top even today.
You are trying to take away those wins from his legacy under a false pretense that the level of competition he faced is less than today. I'm not saying everyone he faced was all that, but
it's a pretty damn impressive resume... & those wins actually happened & can never be taken away no matter how many more he loses. That underlined part just above is my key point. I'm just saying that more present losses does not take away from past victories.
You also are leaving out of your equations that if the sport wasn't that well developed from the top to the bottom of the division... how much more noteworthy it is for the OG champs to be ahead of their time in order to be well rounded & advance to the top of their era. That's another reason you cannot accurately dismiss their past in light of what became an inevitable losing streak.