i had a thread similar to this a while back... with mercer calling for a shot at haye...and the likes of toney etc... and even at light heavy calzaghe, jones, hopkins, tarver... what do you consider old for, taking heavyweight as an example, a modern heavyweight...
I mean age is relative, you get the very rare fighter who can be successful to a point in the 40's. Obviously george foreman and larry holmes etc.... But for everyone of those you get 2000 that aren't
Depends....most heavies are still pretty good at 40 ...guys like Moorer , McCall, Holyfield , Mercer , could beat some top 20 hw ,s outthere...
I already posted it up earlier i think 36 regardless who you are, you have seen better days. No fighter past 36 is at there peak :good
my thoughts were exactly the same...but still asked due to so many around-40 year olds at top level these days...
37-38 is old for a HW, but some 'old' HWs can still be good. They are past their primes, but they still have something left, and in todays weak division that's often enough to be competitve with the best. Toney, McCall, Golota, Holyfield, they've all got something left and can still be competitive (to various degrees). Foreman proved that you can still become a champ (or beltholder) at 45, so I think they all believe they can do it too... Hell, even old Mercer can still beat fighters...
It all depends on the career the heavyweight had. If they had a long amateur background than probably 35. If not than 40.