Printable View
I suppose science has done a lot to prolong peoples careers. Not long ago turning 30 pretty much singled the end of an athletes career. So much is known about nutrition, training, recovery etc that if athletes follow the advice and knowledge out there that they can easily perform well past 30.
A couple points:
1. Age is only a partial factor in whether a fighter is in his prime or not. Is a 27 year old fighter more likely to be in his prime than a 35 year old? Yes, of course. But there are other factors, such as the age when a fighter started his career, the number of tough fights he's had, the number of times he's killed himself to make weight.
Look at Bernard Hopkins and Erik Morales for example. One man is still fighting extremely well at age 43, the other was shot at 29. That's because Hopkins started his pro career at a late age, hasn't been in many wars, and keeps himself in great shape at all times. On the other hand, Morales was already a pro as a teenager, had one war after another, and used to blow up in between every fight and then starve himself down.
2. Why are there so many 30-something fighters in the PFP rankings right now? Part of it may just be a fluke, and part of it is because modern training and conditioning methods allow athletes to compete longer than they did in the past. And that's true in all sports, not just boxing. 30-40 years ago, there were very few pro athletes who were effective into their late 30s or 40s, now it's more commonplace. There are 40 year old baseball pitchers, football players, basketball players, etc.
I think the reason that there are so many older fighters on the P4P list is because it takes a long time to gain that type of credibility with the boxing community. Is Joe Calzaghe any different of a fighter than he was before he fought Lacy? No, but he had no resume back then. He had the same exact talent and style but no resume. It takes time to build a resume to be considered for the P4P list. This is why you have so many older fighters on the P4P list. Young fighters might have the talent but because of the matchmaking, they usually don't get involved in big fights until much later in their careers. You won't find a young guy on the P4P list unless he possesses something extremely out of the ordinary and special (i.e. RJJ and Mayweather Jr.).
Look at fighters like Jorge Linares, Andre Berto, Juan Manuel Lopez, or Chad Dawson. All of these guys have the talent and potential to be P4P #1 but right now they're nowhere in the top 10 because they don't have enough names and respect. Well, except for Dawson, he should probably be in the top ten at this point. It's called paying your dues I guess.
Older guys have always been around in Boxing, Archie Moore and Sugar Ray fought well into their 40's for example. I don't know how Hopkins does it, he is obviously in great shape all the time and i don't think he has had any serious disruptive injuries. Fighters will start to lose it from age 32 onwards on average then you have some exceptions like Hopkins and Calzaghe 37 and 43 respectively.
Jones jr, Tarver and Trinidad are shot, Mosley is very close to the end and is not the fighter he once was.
Kostya Tszyu is a perfect example of how injuries take their toll, causing inactivity and eventually age catches up with you when taking on the younger guys. He may well have been ranked number 3 by the Ring but did he deserve to be that high in 2005 after having 1 fight lasting 3 rounds in two years?
DLH looked ordinary against Forbes, has he lost it? Next week will tell us the answer.
Chavez was gone by the mid 90's, Whitaker went quickly and Tszyu who was pushing 36 when he lost to Hatton found out in one fight how quickly it comes to an end for a fighter. All 3 losing to much younger guys before calling it quits. Will DLH go one fight to many?
Mosley was not impressive against Mayorga, a guy he would have destroyed 7-8 years ago, i would hate to see him get knocked out by Margarito.
Forrest is pushing the envelope too!
I have such terrible memories of Ali continuing a career that really should have ended after the Thriller in Manilla!
You've just shown the inconsistency from fans/writers i was getting at (what the thread was about). Unless you personally held those concerns for Tszyu before the loss of course?Quote:
Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN
Kostya was the betting favourite against Hatton. P4P ranked three. And coming off destroying Mitchell.
Yet because of his loss - The impressive three round destruction of Mitchell was non beneficial to him (lack of rounds). The P4P rating was probably not deserved (probably not enough fights in previous two years). And he quickly became "old" in the fight (he lost).
Calzaghe and Hopkins are still at the very top because they have shown no marked signs of deterioration from their younger days.
Jones, Tarver, Trinidad and Mosley have. That's why it's safe to say they are "past their best" and why they're no longer P4P ranked unlike Hopkins and Calzaghe. That's the difference.
If Kostya was not P4P ranked, not the betting favourite and looked terrible beating Mitchell before fighting Hatton. Claiming he was "past his best" would be justified. But that wasn't the case.
So the argument that a still highly regarded losing fighter got "old" is all too convenient ;)
Age in and of itself is not a determining factor, but age correlates to other factors that do determine performance, obviously.
As to whether or not one can say whether a fighter is actually performing at their best, surely that needs to be determined by watching them fight, and not just by a statistic. New info becomes available after a fight that wasn't there before. And I don't think it's out of line to say a fighter's peformance level, particularly endurance, can change from one fight to the next, or over a period of limited activity. As to the exact reason for that change, I suppose that's open to debate.
In boxing it not so much you actual age that determines it, its you ring age. factors like how many rounds youve fought, how many wars youve been in. I also believe that a fighter on the decline can have a second win in his career and have a decent run because of the added experience. For instance George Foreman was past his prime when he regained the title, but he was more experienced and made adjustments.
i think many of the current p4p top 10 could be classed as past their best
however it all dpeneds when they get the big fights or even just recognition, look at calderon for example he is only just breaking into the top ten but i dont think you can argue that his at his best, his recent performances showing his is slowing down and is on the downslide of his career imo
If that's the case he must have looked incredible in his pomp? Yet he has ONLY just been P4P ranked.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmanhatton
Funny old game ;)
well yes calderon was/is a great fighter, what i mean is look at the first fight with cazares (sp?) he slowed in the second half of the fight and got hit with shots he wouldnt have a few years earlier,
for a 108 lb fighter 33 is very old and its a testement to his skills that he is still going so strong
i really am just stretching out what 'past their best' actually means, for example Hatton will never have another tszyu type performance imo so he can be classed as past his best
Hopkins is the real star of the list though as you could argue that the pavlik fight was his best ever performance and even if not his other great performance (tito) was when he was about 36,37
Can't it be Calderon struggled because Cazares is a naturally bigger, tougher fighter than what he was facing before?Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmanhatton
At 33 he has more recognition from the boxing world than when he was younger. So was he REALLY that much better?
in the early rounds of the first fight and for pretty much all of the rematch calderon made cazares look silly had no trouble making him miss etc
so why in the first fight did calderon then get tagged and dropped in the later rounds?? could it be that age is simply catching up with him
he is still a very good techincal boxer, possibly the best pure boxer in the world today
however all though he may have not THAT much better in the past but he has been at least slightly better and that would be what i would consider as his BEST which he is now PAST
IMO Hopkins ring savvy is what makes those two performances great. But if you look at some of his older fights, I don't think there is any denying that he had better physical tools when he fought guys like Glen Johnson in his early 30s.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmanhatton
yes you are right however i think he was more suited to 160 especially then and maybe that has something to do with it,
his physical peak has passed but his ring savvy lets him pull out these performances at the age he is, he is imo the cleverest man in boxing and it is as much a mental sport as it is physical especially at the top level
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmanhatton
This is the point. If the guy is STILL one of the BEST fighters today, should he LOSE next time, it is completely hypocritical to claim he was "past his best." His "best" shouldn't take credit from the man that betters him. Especially when it's virtually impossible to determine someones "best"Quote:
"he is still a very good techincal boxer, possibly the best pure boxer in the world today"
If you're rated as one of the BEST fighters in the world.. excuses shouldn't count ;)