Question about a fighters "prime" / "past his best"

[Fenster]

Does AGE determine whether or not a fighter is "past his best?"

Age of the current Ring P4P 10
1. Pacquiao (29) 2 weeks from 30
2. Marquez (35)
3. Calzaghe (36)
4. Hopkins (43)
5. Vazquez (30)
6. Margarito (30)
7. RMarquez (33)
8. Cotto (27)
9. Calderon (33)
10. Hatton (30)

These are the 10 BEST fighters in the WORLD (according to The Ring). Only Cotto is in his 20s.

Surely ANY win against a fighter rated TOP 10 in the world CAN NOT be downplayed, right? Yet fans/writers make excuses for fighters losses, because of old AGE, all the time.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Thoughts?

[littlebif]

I dont think it does,These days most fighters excluding Hatton from your list keep they selves fit all year round and that helps.I think it has to do with how many wars you have been in and if you are still motivated my training.

[Trainer Monkey]

It all depends on the fighter,some guys age better then others. Jones is clearly spent, I suspect Tarver is as well. Hopkins is older then I am, and he's in impeccable condition. Injuries and activity can catch one guy, and another one can just keep trucking right through it all

[littlebif]

There is alway an exception where some fighters peak very early like Tyson then fade quickly.

[Taeth]

It depends on the fighter, and the fighs they've had.

[Fenster]

I'm specifically talking about guys 30+ - STILL P4P ranked - that on suffering a loss immediately get excused by - he was "past his best" "not prime" "shot"

Obviously a guy like Roy Jones is past is best.. that's why he's not P4P ranked.

But ANY guy P4P, whatever their age, the guy that beats them should have his win lauded without having attached an "old".. "past his prime/best" .. "shot" .. to sour the win, no?

[C-Lo]

I think the terms "prime" and "past his best" and "shot" are just used for arguments and excuses.

I deem a fighter in his "prime" when he is giving his best string of performances. But physically, it typically happens between the ages of 27-30. When I see a fighter consistently slipping in skills or performances then I start viewing them "past their best." Key word being CONSISTENTLY because everyone throws in a bad performance now and there.

I think age has nothing to do with it. Well not nothing but it's not as important as people make it seem. I think mileage and tough fights take it's toll on fighters more than age.

[bambamdaddio]

I feel it is a contradiction as any current top ten p4p fighter thats 30 plus that suffers defeat should not have age as an excuse for that, neither should the victory of the winning opponent be deemed as less valuable because of the older opponent, this is more specific to the p4p list, & because of that reason, as they are seen to be current fighters who are at the top,

& if they are currently in the top 10 p4p & active, by the very nature of reaching & being active at that level, that should make the old & past it argument a none starter with more plaudits going to the victor..

Or something like that

[CutMeMick]

It all depends on the fighter,some guys age better then others. Jones is clearly spent, I suspect Tarver is as well. Hopkins is older then I am, and he's in impeccable condition. Injuries and activity can catch one guy, and another one can just keep trucking right through it all

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[ICB]

Does AGE determine whether or not a fighter is "past his best?"

Age of the current Ring P4P 10
1. Pacquiao (29) 2 weeks from 30
2. Marquez (35)
3. Calzaghe (36)
4. Hopkins (43)
5. Vazquez (30)
6. Margarito (30)
7. RMarquez (33)
8. Cotto (27)
9. Calderon (33)
10. Hatton (30)

These are the 10 BEST fighters in the WORLD (according to The Ring). Only Cotto is in his 20s.

Surely ANY win against a fighter rated TOP 10 in the world CAN NOT be downplayed, right? Yet fans/writers make excuses for fighters losses, because of old AGE, all the time.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Thoughts?

No it doesn't it all depends on how many fights they've had, the amount of tough fights they've had. The shape they've kept themselves in. Moving up in a weightclass or moving down in a weightclass, loads of things come into it.

[Taeth]

Does AGE determine whether or not a fighter is "past his best?"

Age of the current Ring P4P 10
1. Pacquiao (29) 2 weeks from 30
2. Marquez (35)
3. Calzaghe (36)
4. Hopkins (43)
5. Vazquez (30)
6. Margarito (30)
7. RMarquez (33)
8. Cotto (27)
9. Calderon (33)
10. Hatton (30)

These are the 10 BEST fighters in the WORLD (according to The Ring). Only Cotto is in his 20s.

Surely ANY win against a fighter rated TOP 10 in the world CAN NOT be downplayed, right? Yet fans/writers make excuses for fighters losses, because of old AGE, all the time.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Thoughts?

No it doesn't it all depends on how many fights they've had, the amount of tough fights they've had. The shape they've kept themselves in. Moving up in a weightclass or moving down in a weightclass, loads of things come into it.

I am actually going to change it to how well they adapt, and how good of shape they remain in year round.

Fighters that adapt to their slowing reflexes and skills, and people who stay healthy by living as healthy as possible are way better off than even guys who train hard or in their prime look amazing. I think all those other factors are icing on the cake, but a true master of the sport who fully dedicates themselves to the sport thrive over the long run, only a handful of guys like Monzon can get away with doing otherwise.

[Boom Boom]

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.

[hitmanhatton]

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

[Fenster]

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.

Funny old game

[hitmanhatton]

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