This stupid f* age thing

In Nard's most recent fight, Steward commented that he didn't look like the same fighter and that he should retire. People age differently, but 43 year old men aren't meant to box. He's better than most would be at that age, but he's clearly not the same fighter he was a few years ago.

 

Good points

 

I agree with the general point. Calzaghe at 36 is not less fit than your average top 30 year old, in boxing. He is also better now than he was when he was 30, just about. But as a general rule, he is an exception.

If Chad Dawson were to fight exactly how Hopkins fights now, every other thing being the same, would you think he had a great career ahead of him?

In other words, don't you think people are so impressed with Hopkins precisely because he can still fight very well at 43? If he were 25, 28 or 30 and fought the way he does, would he be still as highly rated? I don't think so...

:good

 

Hopkins is definitely not your average boxing 43 year old let alone 43 year old. But even I noticed some slippage in him. The thing is, what he's lost in putting his hands together he's gained in ring intelligence.

To me he's like a guy who could once scrabble all over the field make any throw to now, he can't doesn't need to scramble that much and he makes smarter throws. Another thing with Hopkins, you could probably count on one hand how many times he's been CLEANLY clocked. He hasn't had no wear near the wars that other fighers have.

The only thing that could take its tool is training camps but I guess thats why Mackie is there..

I will say this though, footwork mainly positioning will be the key in this fight more than anything else.

 

You think the age thing gets mentioned now. Wait until Calzaghe beats him. Every single person currently picking Hopkins to win will be totally discrediting Joe's victory on the basis that Bernard is an "old man."

This is why I've always said that short of the money he's going to make, this is a no win situation for Calzaghe.

 

Age can be a valid criteria to consider when trying to predict a winner. Just one of many. It is up to each to weigh it into their calculations and see how it plays out in a months time. For some, it WILL BE the deciding factor in their analysis. You saying they ain't allowed to do that? Get real.atsch

 

Unlike most fan boy type of posters if Calazaghe beats Hopkins, I'll give him his due. Qoute me on that.

I WON'T say any comment like, "if they fought when they shold have in 2003 it would have been different" either because I'm sure both of their bank branches don't mind at all tha the fight didn't occurr till now.

 

I expect you will be in the minority in that respect.

I mean, I don't have a problem if some guys are currently mentioning Hopkins age as a factor in the fight. I think it should be mentioned because it's relevant. I'm pointing out that I expect most of the Hopkins fans who are currently picking Bernard to win are going to turn tail when he loses and claim "Hopkins is old and shot and Joe's win means nothing." They'll claim that they didn't realize going into the fight that Bernard's skills had declined so rapidly since his last fight, and Joe's win doesn't mean ****. Trust me, it'll be very annoying the day after the fight to listen to their crap.

 

There will be a lot of excuses about Hopkins being old if he loses.

 

calzaghe's gonna dominate hopkins,not because of age but because hes better.

 

Thats a real convincing argument, how so?? He has better speed, thats it.

If you look at their attributes from Jab, power hands (right vs. left), footwork, ability to adapt, most importantly DEFENSE, 'Nard still has him hands down.

So the fight becomes a chess match of sorts. Theres another thread thats talking about Calazaghe winning all 12 rounds. You all seriously don't think that for the preparation of this fight that they're NOT brining in any speedy southpaws to duplicate what Cal brings do you??

I'm not going to play Joe short by anymeans. I think he's a damn good fighter but people thinking it's going to be lopsided on either ide need to just say they're "fan boys" and just relegate themselves to wipining the sweat off their guys back. Because they're incapable of being objective..

 

Age is not irrelevant. There is no rule, but at 43 years old the majority of fighters are shot. In Hopkins' case, he is not shot but clearly past his prime.

 

No it was not, not even close. And, I don't see how Winky's style could've made him look that bad. Nard has excelled against lefties during his career. Age will certainly play a factor in this fight. Fighters seemingly age over night. It's not absurd to say that a 43 year old fighter will not be close to his best. You think so many people would be counting Hopkins out if he was in his mid 30's? Of course not.