Old nd past it

Boxers in the 70s and 80s (prior to that also) were literally finished by the time they reached 32...or on the steep slide. I recall Harry Carpenter sounding shocked when Ali beat Foreman and mentioned his age as part of the drama.

Now you have many boxers reaching their physical prime and technical prime in their mid 30s. K2, Lennox, Marquez, Froch and more.

Why? What has changed?

Simply less punishment and better living.

As well as advances in sports medicine/surgical techniques and technology (some may say the introduction of PED's?)

2 fights a year, the miles aren't getting put on the clock like years ago.

aja424 wrote:2 fights a year, the miles aren't getting put on the clock like years ago.

Frazier fought 36 times. He was finished at 32.

Frazier would defend punches with his melon though.

Same as Hatton. Past his peak in his early 30s because of his face defence kind of style.

There is the exception being someone like Pacman.......but then I have opinions about the reasons why and perhaps I should not air them!

OK. Ali then. Pretty much on the slide at 33 regardless of what style he adopted. Boxers then did not have the longevity of boxers nowadays.

azania wrote:OK. Ali then. Pretty much on the slide at 33 regardless of what style he adopted. Boxers then did not have the longevity of boxers nowadays.

Tell that to Sugar Ray Robinson.

I think it's just like Mackem said, better sports medicine and better training methods. Would also say that the top fighters can extend their careers by fighting on the 'seniors tour'.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact boxers used to fight a lot more often as someone pointed out earlier.

To find a world champ who actually fights three times a year now is like gold dust and the only ones that do are the Germans but they fight local binmen and janitors most of the time.

Ali had 60 fights or there abouts. Wlad has that many and showing no signs of slowing down or slurring his voice. Vit has had about 50 with a 4 year`break and still going strong.

Super D Boon wrote:I think a lot of it has to do with the fact boxers used to fight a lot more often as someone pointed out earlier.

To find a world champ who actually fights three times a year now is like gold dust and the only ones that do are the Germans but they fight local binmen and janitors most of the time.

There's truth to what you say, but Ray Leonard didn't fight that often, and didn't absorb a lot of punches compared to other fighters and he was basically done by 35.

True. Whereas Floyd looks great at 36.

azania wrote:Ali had 60 fights or there abouts. Wlad has that many and showing no signs of slowing down or slurring his voice. Vit has had about 50 with a 4 year`break and still going strong.

As much as I defend the Klitschkos as being excellent boxers I think it's pretty safe to say Ali's competition was a bit stronger. Saying that I'm going to watch the Ali v Foreman before I go to bed.

Granted. But there are several examples of boxers pre 2000 who were finished by 32. (2000 is a random cut off date btw). Can you imagine a time where the P4P number 1 would be 36 and No 2 would be 38? Most boxers in the P4P top 10 are over 35 I believe. Wlad, Froch, Vitali, Floyd and JMM.

What has changed is the lack of talent around..............

Going back to the late 1800's you had Bob Fitzsimmons winning the light heavyweight title at near on 40.
Then you had the Old Mongoose himself Archie Moore retaining that same title until he was 47, drawing with the very good Willie Pastrano.
Eder Jofre and Willie Pep both fought into their late 30's with great success as did Jersey Joe Walcott.

If you're good enough then age doesn't become such a factor especially if you have the defensive ability of all the aforementioned.

The majority of fighters who can carry on to a ripe age are the thinking fighters, there aren't many better ring generals than Hopkins, Mayweather or Marquez.

Like foreman???

No for me the difference is the talent pool................

Would 38 year old Wlad beat Norton, Quarry, Frazier, Holmes, Young, Lyle from the 70s...

Lack of talent is making age a non-issue.

In his comeback Foreman was a fairly intelligent fighter Truss, being trained for years by Moore is going to ingrain some level of know how, he just couldn't get his incredibly durable body to do the things he wanted. Also had the best equalizer of all, devastating power.

The lack of talent at Heavyweight is a major contributing factor as to how the brothers are still at the top, they'd win some against the 70's crop but fighting quality one after another would result in losses especially against punchers like Lyle.

Its not so much do with the frequency of fighting and more to do with the frequency of being punched in the head that shortens careers. Hopkins, Wlad, Vit and Floyyd are examples of guys that take less punishment who can fight on for longer

Whereas guys like Benn and Cotto have been involved in wars, and this has shortened their peak years. Of course there are exceptions such as Manny.

What's more, if we look back to 15 round fights (or beyond) then stamina can be the equaliser to skill, especially during the championship rounds. Further, fighters of yesteryear seemed to have a high punch output (and fights were often won on volume alone) and these facts alone might explain why boxing of older eras suited the younger fitter fighters more. Again there are exceptions, such as Archie Moore but, forgive me if I'm wrong, i think his longevity may have something to do with his fantastic defense and skill (much in the same way of the modern fighters previously mentioned).

To sum up, perhaps fighters had shorter careers back in the day because engines were paramount to success. These days, defensive skill may contribute to longevity, however, older fighters are still vulnerable to being outworked (i.e. Hopkins)

Moore is an interesting one Mackem, he received his fair share of beatings during his career and for me his longevity is a mystery to explain whereas with Hopkins he has never been beaten up. Granted i've not seen the fight but all reports say that Burley savaged him round after round, knocking him down at will as did Charles in at least two of their three fights plus you have the Durelle fight. You are right though that Moore had a fantastic defence and honed his skills in a way that will probably never be matched, his boxing brain is the greatest of all time and with it he made up for his physical decline.

You know my history is a little iffy Ghosty but even I was little wary about using Moore as an example. He did take a lot of punishment, especially by today's standards.

You may be able to shed some light here: Were the beatings Moore took during his own era spectacular in comparison, to say, the beating his peers were taking? Or were they less? Maybe if they were less then it could have been a factor in extending his career. Maybe he was just brilliant and had a massive dig matched by an equally impressive boxing mind..

... some people are just special i guess?

Well I would personally say he boxed in an era that is far superior to any that had gone before or happened since. This was no longer the time of tough men trying to prove they were the stronger but it was full of talented technicians, his contemporaries included Charles, Burley, Robinson etc. So it wasn't as if he had a mediocre fighters to face off against whereby his age becomes even more baffling. The beatings he received weren't as bad as say a Jake LaMotta who was finished fairly young but still significant enough to shorten most careers.

His fight with Yvon Durelle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTtzltIK2ng

Because the '0' is being protected which leads to easier fight until a title bout is looming.