It's getting so old how people arbitrarily blame losses on a fighters age. The Wlad vs Fury fight is a perfect example. The age stalkers claim "Wlad is old he can't pull the trigger". Yet Tyson Fury, who is like 25, threw a couple more punches then him per round, and most were in the clinch. Is he "old" as well. Not to mention Fury was staggering around like a drunken master and is so tall it's hard for anyone to hit him, and Wlad is moving around like a robot waiting to be hit. When Sergio Martinez, Floyd, Marquez, Hopkins, Golovkin are dominating people from 33-38 yrs of age there is no mention of age. Then you have guys lose a fight in their early 30's lose against a skilled opponent and it's because they are old. Maybe it's because the opponent is better or the more fights you have the more likely you are to lose. When Mosley does better than Canelo against Floyd and loses it's because he's old, so is Canelo old too, or is it the other age excuse he's too young. Tell that to Mike Tyson. Age is almost never a factor in a loss. If you are the Champion, you don't get "old overnight" , or within like 3 months since your last fight. You might get complacent, you might not train as hard, you might have a bad night, bad gameplan, better opponent. It's like the perfect excuse. it's just used at random for anyone within a 12 year age range, to explain the sole reason they lost.
Really? I was going to write a nice paragraph about biological age and boxing age but if you can grasp the concept that getting old affects a fighters performance, why bother?
Age is never a factor in a loss??? Right. SoSpinks was simply a better fighter than the "prime" Ali he fought. Camacho destroyed prime Leonard as well I guess.
When a fighter gets older, his reflexes and other physical abilities fade. Really, this isn't a difficult concept.
I guess you missed the Jennings fight, with many saying Wlad looked his age there and had noticatibly declined in speed and activity.
