Thread: Our Aging Sport

At the moment Ring Magazine's pound for pound top ten averages 33 years of age. Doesn't say much in a vacuum though does it? And by the way, it ain't all BHOP. Take him out and it is still nearly 32.

2001-31
1991-27

Now I'm using Ring Champs as the p4p stats stop in 1989.

1981-26
1971-27
1961-29
1951-28
1941-26
1931-24

In other words 2011 and 2001 are more than 18% and 15% respectively over the 80 year average. That is an enormous gap. If one takes 2001 and 2011 out? They are 23%+ higher! More shocking still is they are approximately 10% over the the next highest period, 1961. Three things make 1961 interesting. It was viewed in its own time as a boxing wasteland, Archie Moore was a 45 year old champion and Old Bones Joe Brown was the 36 year old lightweight king. Yet today we are more than 10% older!

I have looked up tennis Grand Slam winners, hockey Stanley Cup winners, and the average NFL and NBA ages and there is no discernible age pattern over 50 years. Those sports are not getting older and have not seen any material difference over the past 15 or so years in terms of age. It is only boxing.

What is going on? What began happening in the 1990's? I think there are a number of possibilities (in no order)

1) We have an extraordinary group of older p4p top ten fighters today who are holding off a typical group of younguns;
2) The younger fighters simply stink and aren't driving an ordinary group of old lions away;
3) There is something going on with the technology or training or nutrition that disproportionately favors fighters in their 30's over fighters in their twenties;
4) It takes a certain number of pro fights to become truly proficient and that number is now more than fighters in their twenties fight. Today it simply takes a fighter into their thirties to become experts;
5) Some combination of the above.

Now if it it largely numbers one or two? Over the next decade we should expect a reversion to the earlier averages. If it is mostly three or four then we will have an older sport for the foreseeable future.

I have an opinion what is going on, but I'd sure like your thoughts.

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

Plus you forgot to mention illegal drugs like A-side meth. That stuff makes you invincible in the ring.

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Originally Posted by Fenster

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

TRUTH!

Makes for really mediocre fighters. I couldn't care less about unbeaten fighters. I care about great ones.

Well i think its coz fighters dont fight as frequently as they used to. They fight 2 or 3 times a yr and it takes time to build experience when your fighting that infrequently. By the time they are experienced enough to fight at the top level they are older.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

TRUTH!

Makes for really mediocre fighters. I couldn't care less about unbeaten fighters. I care about great ones.

But dont you think we have kind of created this mindset. We are so critical these days when a fighter loses to someone that its gotta have an effect on the mindset of the fighter.

Originally Posted by Snakey

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

TRUTH!

Makes for really mediocre fighters. I couldn't care less about unbeaten fighters. I care about great ones.

But dont you think we have kind of created this mindset. We are so critical these days when a fighter loses to someone that its gotta have an effect on the mindset of the fighter.

Do I think undereducated (defined as those who disagree with me in this matter)fans are at the core of boxing's issues? I do. Every time someone calls a strapholder a champion, a guy who loses "damaged goods" or argues an unbeaten record equals greatness an unscrupulous promoter calls up a sanctioning body head and crows "I told you these guys were that stupid! Now I gotta find an out of work 135 pound pipefitter to take on my latest 15-0 Cuban defector!"

I do think the tournaments at 168 and at 118 have stemmed the tide a little in that perhaps people now realize occasional losses to other top guys aren't all that meaningful.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Snakey

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

TRUTH!

Makes for really mediocre fighters. I couldn't care less about unbeaten fighters. I care about great ones.

But dont you think we have kind of created this mindset. We are so critical these days when a fighter loses to someone that its gotta have an effect on the mindset of the fighter.

Do I think undereducated (defined as those who disagree with me in this matter)fans are at the core of boxing's issues? I do. Every time someone calls a strapholder a champion, a guy who loses "damaged goods" or argues an unbeaten record equals greatness an unscrupulous promoter calls up a sanctioning body head and crows "I told you these guys were that stupid! Now I gotta find an out of work 135 pound pipefitter to take on my latest 15-0 Cuban defector!"

I do think the tournaments at 168 and at 118 have stemmed the tide a little in that perhaps people now realize occasional losses to other top guys aren't all that meaningful.

I would like to see tournaments at all weight classes, like the 118 one mind you a simple single elimination bracket with each sanctioning body having a representative. Of course the WBA would have to have some kind of tourney on their own. I think bringing the clarity back of having real champs would be a great first step into making the sport back into something the public can understand. Hell even my wife see's through the "but this is a championship fight" case I set forth "They are all title fights" she says, and I can't argue with that.

As too the aging thing, it just seems like it's kind of following the trendline. People that are older are doing more in general and maintaining a peak level longer. Although there is certainly some truth to a lack of dominant talent in the younger guys, a lot of that ties to two things IMO.

1. The amateur system has nothing to do with the pro system, in the old days if a fighter went the am route they could have hundreds of fights that emulated a pro fight, now with the point system a whole different emphasis that doesn't translate into the pros is used. Therefore, we have a system of protection in place that gives young fighters time to relearn their craft.

2. Fighters for the most part are just not as active, as you get into the elite of Cruisers and Heavies a lot of these guys will only fight once a year. IMO if a fighter is capable of it they should be in the ring at least once every 3 months.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by Fenster

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I'm sure there are a ton of tv friendly fighters out there who just don't get the exposure that would credit the sport.

Originally Posted by Fenster

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I think that one possible reason that I posted in another thread is a lack of consistency in who trains them. I said in another thread that I don't believe it is just coincidence that those present fighters who have the most 'craft' are those who have been around the same group of people from when they first put on the gloves to the present day so there is a consistency of teaching. This is true for Mayweather with his uncles & father, Hopkins with Bouie Fisher & then Nazim, both Marquez bros & Nacho (& Zaragoza in Rafa's case who was a student of Nacho) & Ward with Virgil Hunter.

I think there has become a culture of thinking you need to go to a Roach or Steward to improve. Not that they don't necessarily do that, but I think in a number of cases, they have far less effect. For me, Amir Khan now has simply gone back more to how he used to be in the amateurs, whereas early in his pro career he seemed to think that as he didn't have to worry about losing points for getting hit anymore so he just stood in front of opponents & let off quick combos. Oscar De La Hoya went through about half a dozen trainers after leaving his amateur trainer who started him in the pros (I think he was called Victor Salazar), but the only one you could argue actually improved him was Floyd Sr.

The experience obviously plays a factor, but I think it's simplistic to say fighters are all just less skilled nowadays. I think Killer's post was probably the one that addressed why it might be.