Well he was old

I kind of agree but if both are old and it's a fight that could've been made years before, then that's a different story.

 

Most of the time its a fact not an excuse. Example: Ali vs berbick. No way a prime or slightly past his prime Ali would lose to Berbick.
Age is a Mk'er.
I think the "he was shot" is a worst excuse.
Some fighters are considered "shot" in their 20's.
Not all fighters are Hopkins or Foreman.
Age more times than not is a real reason some good/great fighters lose.

 

Can be a big difference in a fighter at 36 vs 33.

 

Yeah Marciano beat Louis get over it lol

 

The phrase ,,"in his prime " is used for a reason. Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 fights, 1 in his prime. In his prime Roberto Duran was 72-1 , If a great fighter is 35 and loses to a 25 year old yeah ,age is a dominant factor and it can't be dismissed

 

Its slightly over used sometimes.
But do you know what I hate even more.

People saying oh he was too green....ie too young..
Like when a non roided canelo got whooped by Floyd, trout and Lara.
Or when tank don't want to fight Loma. He's too green ATM.

 

If the only reason you are in the ring is that Uncle Sam has a bayonet to your back ,and you can't throw a right hand to save your life, you are truly old.

 

Wellllllll, yeah.

 

I don't know, I think it matters. I'm not the type of guy to dismiss the win completely, e.g. if a fighter is 2 years removed from his prime it's still a very good win, but you don't get credit for beating the guy as if he's still in his prime when he's clearly declined.

 

Maybe Usain Bolt can try beat his world record 9.58sec when he turns 38. Get into training six months before, and should be no problems being as good as he was. I mean, ageing is just an excuse. There's literally no proof physical performances drop off when an athlete gets older. None at all...