Q .How old was Frazier when he was said to be in decline ? A . 29 Q. How old was Tom Sharkey when he was said to be in decline? A . 29 It's not the numerical age, it's the wear and tear.
this would be nothing new just look at the top 10 contenders of the 70s, and 80s you can see that most middleweights become club fighter level by age 30
but we all know Hopkins is one of those rare exceptions, like Archie Moore Monzon is another exception but the vast majority are over the hill by 30. Like McVey said, its mostly caused by wear and tear
Yep agreed, back when the overall quality of fighters was much higher than today, they were 'old' at much younger ages. They fought much more often against much tougher competition, therefore no great conclusion that they were much better. The fact that we have so many fighters of advanced age as "champions", is a huge indicator to me that these guys today would be doing well just to crack the top ten in any era pre-2000. Anyway I'll stop complaining (even though I'd like to, seeing as I subscribed to DAZN recently lol). Oh, and I agree with most, Hagler was a beast in rematches - but Leonard would've won theirs. It was painfully obvious that The Marvelous One was getting slower & slower, not being able to pull the trigger as quickly and would've been turtle-like by the time of the rematch. I agree with the poster that said Hagler was slipping since the Roldan fight, and hell, he didn't look right even in Duran fight to me.