Should there be a set retirement age in boxing?

True NO MAS, but once you quit boxing, you'll most likely quit sparring too.

 

No not at all when you got 43 and 45 year olds(bhop,holyfield) exsposing young hype jobs,some boxers do not go pro till late,differant courses 4 differant horses as they say.

 

Back in the early days we had what we call old men fighting late into there 40's and 50's. Some fighters are like fine wines and we seen how that Olympic rule stopped Felix Savon from defending his title and he could of went on a lot longer. It's a great part of the sport how older guys get better with age and defy the odds.

Every fighter is unique. I saw Meldrick Taylor on legendary nights fighting way into his 30's. He's speech is now badly slurred and is a shell of his former self. Then you have a man like Hopkins who is fighting into mid 40's and has his wits about him and is a supreme world class athlete.

The sad thing with boxing is that not every commission reads off the same hymn sheet. A fighter can be rejected in one state then move fight to new venue and get license all because of £££ and who knows who.

What bothers me Journeyman who are fighting on 34 fight losing streaks that's a major issue in boxing imo.

 

And that was my point, the damage is already done by then...:yep

 

+1

I'm not sure what I'd call them..... to me the definition of a journeyman is an athlete capable of being competitive, at the very least taking a round or two off a decent opponent and capable of beating a lesser skilled ''prospect''.

Losing loads of fights in a row.... including a few stoppages, isn't competing.

 

Ah then you'd just have promoters putting 2 of these guys against each other on undercards to break their streak so they can keep using them as meat for prospects.

It'd be really hard to bring in a rule, because if people want to find a way around it they will.

 

Journeyman vs journeyman matches are generally fine in my book.... so long as the pair of them aren't shot to bits.

I'd rather see that than a top young kid in his early 20's beating the hell out of some 40+ 13-120-8 opponent.

 

This would be a punishment on those woven from the "old skool" cloth who you'll never see enjoying the temptations of life (beer, cigarettes, weed, red meat, etc) in between fights or after a disappointing loss. Who stay close to their scale weights even in 6 month downtimes by being gym rats and eating vegetables and not clubbing and chasing after the skirts. Making themselves relevant at 40 years old and able to compete at the top and earn a living.

Each case should really be taken on its own merit. Fighters don't age at the same rate, their styles, opposition, lifestyle, activity, genetics and defensive skills or lack thereof are what determine the rate at which father time catches up. It really becomes clear even to the untrained eye when a fighters had enough whether he's 25 or 35.

 

no dont think ya should have a set age to retire look at the fights between 30+ fighters over the years last year in a british ring u had martin rogan v matt skelton which was a fight of the year contender....class fight rogan didnt pick up a pair of gloves till he was 32 he gave us some exciting fights...jason booth is givin his best perfomances after the age of 30 its down to the fighter imo

 

There should be no set age limits for the reasons given above, but the authorities should definitely look a lot closer at the 'Losers Unlimited' type of fighter.

20/30 years ago it was almost unheard of for an active British boxer to have had 100 fights but now it's commonplace again. Therefore the long-term effects of such a long career aren't known.

 

Definitely not.
Because athletes in all different sports peak and dip at different ages. Ali was shot to bits at the age of 38 when he fought Holmes, but Hopkins had some of his most impressive wins from that age onwards.

Tyson was past his best by 30 and yet numerous fighters have excelled or had the best years of their careers past the age of 30. The Klit brothers being an example.

What does need to happen is for more stringent rules regarding licences. Holyfield should have been stopped a long time ago and is risking serious brain damage by carrying on. But setting an actual set age would be a mistake in my opinion.