A new division for the over-35s?

Nearly everyone in that list (except Philips I would say) are in the top 20/30 P-4-P in the world right now. There's a couple in the top 10, and one of them is the world No.2 IMO (Joe C).

It doesn't work the same way as tennis, because the guys mentioned would still give the majority of the young-guns in their respective divisions a severe kicking. Why give up the money and exposure to go fight on some seniors tour. One of the great spectacles of the boxing game is the young up-and-comer taking on the established star; its like a right of passage.

If you're good enough you're young enough.

Also fighters age in different ways, due to style etc; there is no way to set a reliable age mark for such a division. Some fighters are shot by the time they reach their late 20's, others mid 30's, and more still go beyond that. Even one bad fight can turn a fighter shot.

Plus many fighters turn pro at a very young age and therefore pick up wear and tear at a younger age. Again, this makes it very hard to pinpoint a specific age range for seniors.

Sorry, but I couldn't see this plan working.

 

no man, no more confusion for the casual fans.

 

Oh great. Take the 60 odd different belts, the multitude of lesser belts, the too many weight categories and double them all with another category based on age?

No.

All the fragmentation is hurting the sport as it is.

 

Take their liscense if they can't protect themselves inside the ring, but let's not complicate this sport when it's not really necesarry, also, do you think they would like to be excluded and not be able to prove they are the absolute best in their division and instead just say they are the best seniors?? I think that if they are still fighting is because they can protect themselves well from the younger fighters and they want to prove they are better than the younger Champions.

 

spot on

 

Forget the tennis analogy, in tennis you don't risk brain damage when you lose.

 

Then it is case of a "shot" tour rather than a "seniors" tour.

Nothing to do with a fighters age, just the fact that he is past it. I edited my first post and went into this in more detail, in regards to the fact that fighters age in different ways depending on fighting style, number of fights, number of tough fights, career affecting (not ending) injuries, ability to take punches with less effect (long term) on one fighter than they might have on another, and years in the sport (ie: some boxers turn pro at a very early age, while others wait until later).

There are some fighters in their late 30's who are more on-top of their original game than guys in their late 20's (some of whom could be termed "over-the-hill").

If you based this league around fighters whose skills have eroded to a "certain" (I use the term loosely - who would dictate this) degree, then it becomes a dodgy pick-and-choose scenario that will end in failure.

 

Will make things more confusing, though you forgot to add Roy Jones to that list.

 

File 13 that ****. It simply isn't needed. I think it speaks volumes for someone like Big George who at what 43, can take a crazy-ass beating from someone like Holyfield and still go the distance with The Warrior. Remarkable n' laudable, dontcha say? I do. This makes guys that can do such an elite status in thier own right as far as I'm concerned.