Well he was old

You are picking ATGs - outliers, as I said - and applying their rare talents (physical, technical, ring IQ) and applying what we know about them to the whole sport. That's a flawed methodology. If anything the rarity of examples you chose substantiates the theory ageing plays a large factor in decline of more typically talented professional boxers....

 

Agree entirely if it's used as an excuse, especially if that boxer goes on to compete successfully. But excuse making is a separate matter...

 

Fair enough, we should hold ATGs to a higher standard. But they can still fall off the performance cliff like any other fighter...

 

Age would not be a factor it would be on the style or type of fighter , Pac-Man relied on reflexes , Foreman relied on timing so his age didn’t really effect him much and had one hell of a chin in his 40”s . Fighters decline at different times , Mike Tyson operating at peak performance for a sustained long period would almost be impossible for instance he would have slowly declined no matter what by mid 90”s .

Even in decline however they could still have a great performance pulled out of a hat . Wlad Klitschko comes to mind even in his loss to AJ , really you don’t know until the fight how any fighter will look so age thing is a bit over used unless you can reflect on a fighters resume showing that fighter is declining .

 

Good reflexes make great fighters. Reflexes drop off with age. That's a fact. You may be able to throw a punch with the same speed and power, but to react with the same quickness is a diffrent story. It just isn't there. A fighter gets hit more cleanly and doesn't hit the opponent as often. Openings that he was able to put a fist through, now hit his opponents gloves. Punches he once slipped, land clean.

 

True. But I can't really think of an old undefeated ATG losing to a young fighter and the young fighter not getting some credit for it.
Do you have an example?

 

40 is not old in boxing, its ancient!
Hopkins was beating some good guys but they were limited. Plus, rumor has it Hopkins had some "special help".
There is a reason what Hopkins did was special. Because 99% of other fighters his age couldn't do it.

Age is for real otherwise there would be world champion in their 60's and 70's.

 

Yes, but it because of AGE!
It's not like they want to hit a wall.

 

With that logic Ray Leonard should come back and win the WW title.
Do you think beautiful women want to become less attractive?
Father time WILL ALWAYS be undefeated not matter how Great the fighter is.

 

Of course, I wouldn't give the ****ers credit. They have every advantage. Beating a guy who's in his prime is world's different than beating an old over the hill shot fighter. Giving full marks for beating an old fighter makes as much sense as doing it for beating an injured fighter. You have to grade the win in context to the state both fighters are in when they enter the ring.

 

I give credit where it's due too, and withhold it when it's not. I'm not giving full credit when someone beats a young guy who shows up fat and out of shape either.

 

Right. There's a difference between beating a man who goes on to have plenty of success and beating a guy who is done and retires directly after. The quality of the win should be judged on a Lacy scale of how much did they do after that loss. So many guys get up there in years without losing, but once they lose once they are done. Some limp along for a while barely hanging on but not losing. It doesn't matter that they'd won their last ten in a row if they can't win their next one or two.

 

So you would give someone the same amount of credit for beating a 40 year old Pac and Mayweather as you would give them for beating a 30 year old version?