always think being younger is an advantage??? every time hes going over the tale of the tape. for example if one fighter is 24 and the other is 29 he will say the younger fighters has an age advantage. doesn't matter what the ages are he will always say the younger fighter has an age advantage and depending on how a fighters career goes he may hit him prime when hes 32 years old so if he fighting a 25 year old who really has an advantage ? all im saying if your younger it doesn't really mean u have an advantage.
It does. Physically you should be fitter when you are younger. Less injury prone & have took less punishment in your career. But age normally brings or means more experience. The traits/characteristics that are related to age are more important than the age itself.
Semantics. I'd say the same, but it doesn't really mean much. You can't really pinpoint when any fighter hits their prime. Some are shot by 30, others are still green.
its not always an advantage it all depends on the fighters. when b hop was 36,37,38 his age gave him an advantage vs most of the young guys he fought. he was always in shape and treated his body right and the experience and knowledge and always being in shape gave him an advantage every time. and if a 28 yr old man fights a 20 yr old the 20 yr old doesnt have an advantage 100% of the time. did Broner have an age advantage vs PDL?? no way this is an example where age an experience an all that stuff is in favor of PDL .. everyone knows broner lost that fight and it was due to PDL being a grown ass man and broner was not
i get that most people think that for sum reason. but the guy who is gunna be in better shape is who ever puts the hard committed work and dedication in the gym to not fatigue in the boxing ring. and as far as shape and physical appearance some dude that barely has a 6 pack can **** up that dude who is ripped as all can be. i just think lampley no matter wut says the younger fighter has an age advantage and some times or possibly more often then not hes right . but it all depends on the situation and alot of times he says it going over the tale of tape where i completely disagree with him. cuz how is a 22 yr kid gunna have any age advantage vs a 29 yr old when that 22 yr isnt even done growing yet?
I have to agree with OP - there is a lot of context that Lampley ignores, being younger is not a blanket advantage. It would have made more sense to assume as much decades ago, when fighters fought a lot more often and took a lot more punishment much more quickly. But there just is not a good replacement metric a TV guy can point to that quantifies "how much damage a guy has taken in training/fights".
Because Lampley is like the Vatican. They both are into young boys. The young angle is often deceiving. Ask Bernard Hopkins.
exactly sometimes its hard to say and lampley over there saying the dude has an age advantage its like how can u say that being so sure? its not like its a no brainer. if a fighter is reaching his upper 30's once hes like 36 or a above thats really when the age factor starts kickin in. n when he is fightin a young buck thats wen u can say the younger guy is gettin an advantage. unless ur b hop n u hit ur prime when ur 36
