Why are modern heavyweights so old

I think the case of boxing is very different though.

In athletics the ability to maintain peak for a few years extra (2, 3, 4 years) has been steadily developing over the last several decades. For reasons we've already agreed upon. (also, the introduction of high-paid open professionalism in that particular sport has been a major factor).

But in boxing, you only have to go back to the late 1980s and 35 would have been considered too old, even for a heavyweight. 38 was considered ridiculous, and a serious health risk. Anything past 30 and you're likely to be going down rather than up.
Nowadays even small guys like Pacquiao and Mayweather are considered still peaking at 30+ (Floyd is almost 35 I think).
Heavyweights of 34, 35, 36 are at their peak, some older, and that's become the norm.
Boxing has changed far more than athletics, in a far shorter time span too.

 

well also boxing like any combat sport is not all speed
but streaght too

and from i read in weight lifting-body building circles
a man is actually strongest in mid 30's

 

I definitely agree with you here Burt. In earlier times,there would have been no way that a forty something could have been a division's top fighter. Except for an Archie Moore here or there. But guys like that were a one off.

 

I think the argument that that the good big athletes went into football,basketball is not true, it takes a different element besides athleticism to be a fighter.

Another counter argument to the " good big athletes went into football,basketball" is what would have happened if the eastern Europeans that now dominate the sport were allowed to compete as professionals in the 50's,60's70's80's we have a quite different history in the larger classes in those decades

 

What? Say that to david haye and wlad and audley harrison lol

 

I'm not an American, and I don't want to see a return to sheer American domination of the heavyweight division .... BUT it's very sad to witness the utter disintegration of American boxing, esp. the heavyweights, in recent years.

The rise of the Russian/Ukrainian/East European HWs has been a good thing - but they don't yet rate anywhere near where the American HWs were. In fact, beyond the Klitschko brothers, I'm not sure any of them will be remembered at all.

 

Boxing in the US is DEAD AND BURIED, and its not coming back.

 

Yes, its nonsense. These ppl are in denial about how dismal a state boxing is in. In fact the modern fighters have it HARDER, if anything. 3 month training camps age boxers very badly, worse than 2 fights would during that time. Of course some of these fellas rickety old bodies are held together by HGH, Tren, test, IGF-1 - which is the REAL evolution of any sport. Training and nutrition is the Tooth Fairy of sports, its all nonsense.

 

just a bit of a different possibility, but does current matchmaking artificially raise the age of the best figthers?

We no longer see good fighters fighting each other which means we have no way really of knowing who is or isnt the best fighters. In modern times, Sam Langford might have only ever fought (and beat) Harry wills once or maybe twice. He could easily be considered totally dominant over a young Harry Wills, and because of it Harry might be a nobody today. Likewise, Gunboat Smiths one win over Sam Langford might See him spring above him in all time rankings because it is unlikely that we would see the second rematch. And how ordinary would Langford look with 1-1 or 0-1-1 or somthing similar results with Jeanette, McVey, Bell and others?

And the most important part of the equation, how would the old timers look if their first 5 years or so was total nobodies on their records and from their they only got to fight 1 every now and then. Plus, once they became contenders (and every one gets a title nowadays), they sit on their title and only fight once a year or so. Think how old most of htme guys could get, before they lose 3 or 4 fights and people realise they are past it.

Plus, with the best contenders no longer fighting each other, it is only natural that it is assumed that the very best fighters are those who have been around the longest. And i think that there is a bias in ranking fighters as it is impossible to rank the younger unproven fighters.

 

I think there is something in your thesis here. I have turned my attention to Europe, where the best boxing is these days.

Of course, boxing is a sport that requires really hungry athletes. Always has. The best fighters have always come from the lowest, most oppressed classes. Peope willing to take a beating to get out of the ghetto.

As a boxing addict, I need to watch good fighters fight. And it's mostly Eastern Europe where that is happening. I think it's partly because Americans, because of their past prosperity, have lost their hunger, and since the Iron Curtain's no longer keeping the hungry Eastern Europeans out, they are dominating the sport.

However, I think there might still be hope for the sport in the U.S. if our economy and standards of living continue to freefall. :happy

 

:deal this is the answer and closes the case.