Fighters where their fundamentals help them through aging...

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by suriamarsuli

But then again why does Joe Louis,whom which Monte D Cox refers to as the most fundamentally "correct" boxer,declined greatly in his fights after WWII when his speed left him.Why didn't his fundamentals help him?

How many figths did he lose and to whom? Where was he ranked? You´ll find that he lost to Charles and Marciano (and beat Walcott twice also once only arguably) and that he was as high ranked as number one or two. So, I think his fundamentals helped him a good bit.

[freddieMaize]

Holyfield ?

[bodhi]

Toney didn´t do too shabby.

[PowerPuncher]

Most of these guys, Toney excluded kept themselves in incredible for their age, I think Hopkins and Marquez are probably fitter than some of their opponents, same with Mayweather

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by suriamarsuli

But then again why does Joe Louis,whom which Monte D Cox refers to as the most fundamentally "correct" boxer,declined greatly in his fights after WWII when his speed left him.Why didn't his fundamentals help him?

Originally Posted by bodhi

How many figths did he lose and to whom? Where was he ranked? You´ll find that he lost to Charles and Marciano (and beat Walcott twice also once only arguably) and that he was as high ranked as number one or two. So, I think his fundamentals helped him a good bit.

To start with, I wouldn't call Louis the most fundamentally correct, not by some distance, but also I agree with Bodhi. Louis did age relatively well and a lot of that was down to his solid fundamentals.