Past Prime = Win/Win

Shouldn’t this fall in the younger guy? Why are they chasing the fading aging fighter?

I see it as a Small price to pay for the money they make fighting these establish aged fighters.

 

Yeah, you should always take into account the fighter at the time. For example, Hagler in 1987 was still the best middleweight in the world, therefore, an excellent win for Ray Leonard. He may not have been the best middleweight of all time like he was three or four years earlier, but he was still excellent.

 

Excellent point.
Rather felt this scenario could be applied to Straceys win over Napoles, up to their fight Napoles was ( rightly ) already being labeled a ATG , numerous defenses against all the top rated contenders, and a most skilled boxer to watch granted, and from memory was a overwhelming favorite to retain his title , Stracey was seen as a good European fighter, but not good enough to topple Jose, the rest as they say........

 

Absolutely. Lost count of how many times I'd see someone say "He just beat a 40YO Hopkins..." to try and denigrate the win. That 40yo was still a top his game for near another decade!

 

The main reason for a young fighter to take on the older past prime fighter is for the money. They know going into the deal that they won't get a lot of credit for beating the old man.
I agree there are levels. Some fighters managed to still be formidable into their older age. I give credit for these wins. Beating a 40 year old Hopkins is an accomplishment. The guy that beat a 51 year old Hopkins, not so much.

 

True, but Kovalev did.

 

It also works the other way

For example FMJ will forever have a W against Canelo Alvarez’s name but he fought a young naive Alvarez who hadn’t reached his peak. He wouldn’t beat the peak Alvarez if he fought him 100 times

That’s no different than a young up and coming fighter putting a well known name on his resumé but only getting the win because that fighter was well past his best, yet wouldn’t have lived against the same boxer in his prime. Horne v Pacquiao springs to mind

 

It depends.. If the older guy is a champ then they should chase them.

 

You forgot #3..... They lose.

How is it win/win for the old fighter if he loses? This thread makes no sense. It's called "past prime" for a reason.

 

Ofcourse if they are champ. That’s a no brainer. That would be a fight for a title and age has nothing to do with it. A good example of someone chasing and aged fighter , Ryan Garcia chasing the Pac fight. Only thing he gains is money and exposer.

 

Agreed . like pac has been stripped. Crawford and Spence have no reason to persue a fight with him other than money.

 

I think what is meant here is that even if they lose it doesn't hurt or tarnish their career. So even in losing they don't lose anything hence the win/win. These guys can still get fight and their reputation for what they have achieved untouched. Look at Roy Jones. He is still a legend regardless of the strings of KO he has received by continuing to fight. Now the younger fighter loses and he just dug himself a huge hole.

 

The 3rd win is you can literally claim your past prime as soon as you take a loss, rendering it a loss to age not to the opponent

Any fighter willing to admit he's past prime should just retire period. If the self belief is gone then you have no business in the ring

 

boxers don't even do that FFS....grow the eff up.