Our Aging Sport

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[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.

[generalbulldog]

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

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[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?

[JazMerkin]

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

Good thought. On your last, it may be simplistic, but it ain't wrong

[marbleheadmaui]

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 DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

[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 DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

Hmmm....

1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?

2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.

3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.

Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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?

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[Snakey]

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.

[Snakey]

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.