Age in boxing

Along with cycling, the dirtiest sport on earth.

Maybe why I don't follow so religiously any longer.

 

a) Modern nutrition.
b) Amount of fights in a career.
c) Smaller talent pool.
d) Weight training.
e) Steroids.
f) Paradigm shift: age 32 is not a death sentence.

 

I think the facts that top fighters/prospects generally fight less often and (again, generally) absorb less dramatic damage in doing so probably helps. (After all, who's the last top grade fighter you can remember with 100 bouts by the time he turned 30, or who suffered a Ike Williams-Beau Jack or Patterson-Johansson I type stoppage?)

You definitely have the benefit of progress in medical treatment, nutrition, rehabilitation, and fitness.

You also have to acknowledge the presence of possible PEDs. Sometimes you see stuff that just makes you go hmm, like how Mosley lobbed bombs nonstop at Margarito for 8 rounds, while in his performances before (against Mayorga) and after (against Mayweather) he looked like he was going to gas out with every punch.

I'm not saying anything or lobbing any accusations there, but it does bear thinking about.

Lastly, there are fewer guys banging on the door behind them. As much as we love it, at least here in the US boxing is a fringe sport.

 

Fighters don't take as much punishment as they did back in the day, plain and simple. The Klitschko's have been able to dominate well into their 30's because they rarely get hit and if they do get hit, they quit; e.g. Wladimir vs Saunders, Wladimir vs Brewster. Age doesn't regress fighters as much as injury and punishment does.

 

I'd say that with the elite level guys fighting less often (most of them anyway) they tend to not to get worn out as quickly and that's why they're able to compete at higher ages. Plus, the high level prospects are getting manouvred through the ranks more easily nowadays and aren't getting the tough, punishing tests that older fighters tended to get early (or earlier) in their careers. Some good prospects are 25 fights into their careers before the fight a guy with even a slim chance at an upset.

Of course, that is a sweeping generalisation.

 

Age is a number, it comes down to mileage.

Longer amateur careers, shorter pro careers, shorter fights, earlier stoppages, modern science, and mandatory suspensions with superior medical care have all extended the sell-by-date of the modern fighter.

You're shot when your body stops being able to perform for you, whether at 30 or 50. The number has almost nothing to do with it, but the wear and tear on the body has everything to do with it.

In my old age, I'm easily in better shape than I was younger. Stronger, faster, and a better boxer. But I was more effective as a young man because of my knees, now rapidly degrading from several bad injuries and decades more of living a harder life than the doc's recommended.

Mileage.

 

That's news to me.

Wlad didn't quit in Sanders or Brewster. He got up. It was a ref stoppage.

Vitali quit against Byrd. Duran quit against Leonard. Golota quit against Tyson.

And Wlad was hit against Peter in their first fight, by Brock, by Thompson, by Haye, by Williamson, by Barrett, and he didn't quit.

As for the reason why the top ten fighters were dominated by people in their 30's.

The main reason is that there are fewer young up and comers that would seriously challenge their elders, and most of the ones that break through to the top got defeated afterwards, i.e. Chad Dawson by Pascal, Paul Williams by Martinez, Pavlik by Hopkins, Pascal by Hopkins, Montiel by Donaire, etc.

See the pattern? They then would be bumped off because of their defeats, and those that would replace them would be older.

 

Yes. Look at the heavyweights. Wlad is 36 but his last defense, against Mormack, and his next, against Thompson, are against men even older. And it is hard to sell either as some sort of "older" wonder.

 

Yep.
There is clearly a lack of consistent young fighters coming up. That's the main reason.

Hopkins, Vitali, Marquez were clearly better fighters 5 - 10 years ago.
Most likely Wlad, Pacquiao, Mayweather were better 5 years ago too.

Sergio Martinez is the only highly rated 'old' champion who can reasonably be said to have come in to his prime in his mid-30s.

The others are just hanging on because there simple is no one good to replace them.

 

I don't thik they are better 5 years ago,they are same fighters,not better not worse.Maybe Hopkins but he is 47 years old.There are many other things which are important than age and most important is motive and discipline.Of course that at same stage career you cant beat age but that is not 30 or 35 even 40.When some "experts"say to you that you are getting old and you just turned 35 if you start to believe him or just start thinking about it you would became old.How many journalist said Hopkins was too old at his fight with Trinidad and that was over 10 years ago.What would happened if he started to believe them.What about Archie Moore.Did you watched his performance in second fight with Durelle.He was lighting fast with great reflexes and he was 46 years old.How would some people who thinks that you cant beat aging explain that.

 

Reminding me how Ring's lhw ratings looked in early 2008.
BERNARD HOPKINS - 43 years
ZSOLT ERDEI - 33 years
CLINTON WOODS - 35 years
ANTONIO TARVER - 39 years
GLEN JOHNSON - 39 years
CHAD DAWSON - 25 years
DANNY GREEN - 35 years
ROY JONES - 39 years
PAUL BRIGGS - 32 years
ADRIAN DIACONU - 29 years
REGGIE JOHNSON - 41 years

At that moment the average age of top10 in other divisions was:
heavy 28.5, cruiser 29.5, super middle 30, middle 31.5, jr. middle 31, welter 29.

 

Good post.That's what i am talking about.Some fighter is old at 35 and some is great at 40.So general conclusion is age is just a number.

 

Peaking once/twice a year is very different from going ' round the circuit in the old days -- you'd have to be "good" for far longer periods of time. With age comes a need for longer recovery.

 

Fighters don't fight as often as they used to which saves on wear and tear of the body. Plus there just isn't a whole crop of young hungry fighters around to push the older ones out of the limelight. Using Hopkins as an example, would he be as successful at his age if there was a prime Hearns, Leonard, Duran and Hagler around ? Boxing just doesn't have the mainstream appeal it used to. There was a time when many a young kid wanted to be the next Ali or Sugar Ray but those days are gone. Other sports have taken the spotlight and Boxing in large part has itself to blame. Who wants to shell out 50 big ones to watch nobody's fight for one of the four championship belts in one friggin division? An older fighter can avoid a young tiger and take on the XYZ champion thus prolonging his career....and making more money as well. If there was one champion in each division you'd see alot of these older fighters pushed out of the way as the younger men fight for the chance to win the title...the one title....in one of the 8 original weight classes. It's gotten ridiculous. One fighter wins a title in 6 different divisions?.....please! Bring back the way it used to be and you wouldn't see a 44 year old being one of 4 champions in the newly established Junior Super Almost Whatever division. Maybe I'm starting to show my age a bit but c'mon!