LOUSY YOUNGUNS OR EXTRAORDINARY OLD GUYS

AVERAGE AGE OF RING CHAMPIONS OR NUMBER 1 RATED FIGHTERS

1930-24
1940-25
1950-26
1960-29
1970-26
1980-26
1990-27
2000-29
Today-31

I think three numbers are worth noting here. The average age has never even been 28 except in one of boxing's weakest eras, 1960. Yet in 1960 it was 29 or a whopping 15% older than the average of the three previous decades. Why was that true? Because young fighters were unable to dislodge men like Archie Moore and Joe Brown. The pattern returned close to the historical mean and stayed there through the 1970's and 1980's and began to rise again in 1990. It hit the 1960 level of 29 again in 2000 with Lennox Lewis, Roy Jones, BHOP and Ricardo Lopez all in their mid thirties.

Yet today's number is a full 10% over the aberrations that have happened only twice in the prior 70 years and almost 20% over the average of 26.5 years of the prior seven decades. That is a GIGANTIC deviation.

Let's look at a little more data. The average age of the Ring Magazine p4p top ten.

1990-26
2000-29
Today-32

WTF IS GOING ON???????????????? That's an almost unthinkable 20% jump in the average age in two decades and is consistent with the trends we see in the first set of data.

It is clear one of three things is happening.

1) The younguns just stink and cannot dislodge aging fighters from their perches because they aren't good enough.
2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.
3) A combination of the two.

The bigger question is WHY!

Well let's dismiss things it cannot be, or cannot be proven to be.

1) Enhanced training methods-The idea that somehow improved training methods disproportionately assist older fighters isn't defensible. Why? Because the younguns would have grown up using the new and improved methods (whatever they might be) and wouldn't have to do the un-leanring the old guys would have had to do as they transitioned. In addition, boxing is a man to man sport not a man against fixed objective sport. So unless you can demonstrate that there is some benefit that takes ten years to realize and therefore younguns don't obtain until they are in their thirties it is no soap.

2) Extremely careful matchmaking designed to keep old guys on their thrones-I haven't done a detailed analysis here but it seems to me a tough case to make that the old guys are avoiding the younguns. JMM has fought several top younguns, Wlad has as well, Wonjonkam just whipped 23 year old Kameda, Sergio whipped the seven year younger Pavlik and Fernando Montiel is coming off three wins over guys 28 or younger.

3) The rise of Eastern Europe-While Wlad is in his mid thirties and Lucian Bute is 30, non Eastern European names like Mayweather, Marquez, Montiel and Martinez demonstrate this is not a geographically driven phenomenon.

So what is left? I don't think arguing it's a meaningless fluke is helpful or defensible unless you can make the argument that shortly a series of 26 year olds are going to take out these 33+ year old fighters. But look at the top contenders for some of these guys. There isn't a heavy worth a damn under 29, there isn't a light heavy worth a damn under 28, four of the six 168's in the tourney are over 30 as is Lucian Bute, the middles under 30 are an abomination, 8 of the top ten 154's are 29 or older and only one is under 25, the only welter under 30 worth talking about is Berto and he's already 26, and I can go on and on. The ONLY divisions where the under thirties are prominent are 140, 130, 126 sort of, and some of the really little guys who are historically younger anyway. What I am saying is not only is this not a temporary situation, the top of the sport is likely to get OLDER in the next decade. We seem to have experienced a long-term shift in the sport.

My own guess is what is happening is a function of four things.

First, getting an inferior quality athlete as working material in the first place. Gifted athletes of all sizes have more athletic options open to them than ever before in the US, Europe and Asia. Why choose getting hit in the face if you have other options. So the old guys are, en masse, superior natural athletes to the younguns.

Second, the amateur scoring system and the introduction of headgear (to a lesser degree) has so distorted the sport in the amateur ranks that it no longer provides what it did prior to 1988. Near finished products for the professional ranks. In 1984, by my eyeballing, a dozen Olympic medal winners went on to prominent pro careers. That number in 1992 is more like 7-8 and by 2000 those numbers are down to Rigondeaux, Erdai, Kotelnik, Taylor and that's about it. A major plus for pro boxing might be the elimination of the sport from the Olympics if we can't fix the scoring system.

Third, teaching has just goen the way of the dodo. This is anecdotal, but when Manny Steward has to start holding teaching seminars in major cities like Houston, when we see the dismal cornerwork week after week and fight after fight and it becomes so ingrained that when Juan Diaz gives Sergio Martinez what are wise but pretty basic corner instructions we almost wet ourselves with excitement, WE HAVE A PROBLEM! This means it is harder that ever for prospects to get the kind of rigorous technical training that was so available to Ray Robinson and Joe Louis and Ray Leonard and Ricardo Lopez and Roberto Duran. I STILL think we need to kidnap a series of Cuban National Coaches.

Fourth, Insufficient activity-Fighters simply don't fight often enough as younguns to acquire either craft or ring wisdom. In his first two years, Ray Leonard fought 20 times. Roberto Duran fought 15 times. Hagler 23 times. Arguello 19 times. Mike Tyson had 30 fights. Foyd had 17 in his first two years. ODLH had 15. Manny had 17. By contrast Andre Ward has been a pro for almost six years. He has 22 fights. Chad Dawson has been a pro for almost nine years. 29 fights. Tim Bradley, six years, 26 fights. Andre Dirrell, five years 19 fights. Andre Berto, six years 26 fights. It just isn't enough.

My guess is what is happening here is what happened in the late 1950's for different reasons. Boxing gyms and fight clubs were destroyed by TV and so Joe Brown and Archie Moore didn't get better in their mid and late 30's, the younguns simply weren't able to be developed at the same pace as they had been in prior decades. And so a typical old-guard was made to look better than it likely was by the relative decline of the next generation. The sport righted itself in the 1960's and 1970's and 1980's and seems to have returned to more or less historical averages. I think the same thing that happened in the late 1950's is happening today. I don't think our older generation as a whole is extraordinary as much as the youngsters just aren't coming along as fast as they used to.

What scares me is I really don't know how to reverse this trend.

Back in the day it was expected that the younger and hungrier fighter would dispatch the older one and permanently rid the old man of the notion of ever stepping in the ring again.
Louis did this to Sharkey,Baer and Carnera,while Marciano destroyed what was left of Joe.
I often hear the younger fans complain about older fighters not hanging them up,but as you succinctly put it,the younger fighters do not have the skill or desire to separate themselves from their aging brethren.

Quote :

2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.

LMAO!

Great read Marble.

I completely agree on the training going down the tubes, I mean how many dads and just casual guys do we see now a days running the corner for PRO fighters????

Look at Arreola's trainer!!! More like the guy training him for the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than a fight

gomez1012 wrote:

Quote :

2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.

LMAO!

Great read Marble.

I completely agree on the training going down the tubes, I mean how many dads and just casual guys do we see now a days running the corner for PRO fighters????

Look at Arreola's trainer!!! More like the guy training him for the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than a fight

And Lou Duva was what, exactly?

You cant compare the two man!

Duva knew boxing and ran a damn proper training camp!!

You'd NEVER see Arreola come into the ring like that w/Duva running things

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:

Quote :

2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.

LMAO!

Great read Marble.

I completely agree on the training going down the tubes, I mean how many dads and just casual guys do we see now a days running the corner for PRO fighters????

Look at Arreola's trainer!!! More like the guy training him for the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than a fight

And Lou Duva was what, exactly?

A fat guy who knew his business?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:

Quote :

2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.

LMAO!

Great read Marble.

I completely agree on the training going down the tubes, I mean how many dads and just casual guys do we see now a days running the corner for PRO fighters????

Look at Arreola's trainer!!! More like the guy training him for the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than a fight

And Lou Duva was what, exactly?

A fat guy who knew his business?

Indeed. But Gomez seemed to be making the point that because Arreola's guy is fat, he sucks. He sucks because he sucks, not because he's fat.

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:

Quote :

2) We have an EXTRAORDINARY group of older fighters who would have been hard to dislodge in any era. I will note by the way that BHOP, James Toney and Evander do NOT factor into these calculations for 2010.

LMAO!

Great read Marble.

I completely agree on the training going down the tubes, I mean how many dads and just casual guys do we see now a days running the corner for PRO fighters????

Look at Arreola's trainer!!! More like the guy training him for the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest than a fight

And Lou Duva was what, exactly?

A fat guy who knew his business?

Indeed. But Gomez seemed to be making the point that because Arreola's guy is fat, he sucks. He sucks because he sucks, not because he's fat.

Hard to argue with that!

KrazyHorseBennett wrote:

Indeed. But Gomez seemed to be making the point that because Arreola's guy is fat, he sucks. He sucks because he sucks, not because he's fat.

You can see why I made the point right? Arreola's biggest flaw is being a lazy slob, to me, its coming from his just as bad FAT trainer

WinstonSmith wrote:

Back in the day it was expected that the younger and hungrier fighter would dispatch the older one and permanently rid the old man of the notion of ever stepping in the ring again.
Louis did this to Sharkey,Baer and Carnera,while Marciano destroyed what was left of Joe.
I often hear the younger fans complain about older fighters not hanging them up,but as you succinctly put it,the younger fighters do not have the skill or desire to separate themselves from their aging brethren.

Yup. It wasn't like they had a choice

Good article. I think it is a decline in young fighter quality coupled with ever better steroids.

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

soonermark890 wrote:

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?
4. I think a 34 year old with 40 fights IS younger than the same 34 year old with 75 fights. BUT he's also less seasoned and less experienced. How does that tradeoff work?

I think the last of the ideas is the one that deserves the most thought. One thing I think none of us can really know is after what number of fights does a fighter really know almost everyhting he is going to learn? 50-75-100-more? Manny is strong evidence that fighters can learn into their fiftieth fight. Ray Robinson, by his own account, really wasn't complete until he had more than 50 fights under his belt. In prior generations the avergae number of fights a guy had when winning their first title was around 70.

But who the hell knows?

Here's another way to think about your point. In the past, a champion with say 75 fights was fighting another guy with 75 fights. Now a champ with say 40 fights is fighting a guy with 25 fights. Maybe it isn't the ABSOLOUTE number of fights at all. Maybe it is the RELATIVE level of experience that matters.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?
4. I think a 34 year old with 40 fights IS younger than the same 34 year old with 75 fights. BUT he's also less seasoned and less experienced. How does that tradeoff work?

I think the last of the ideas is the one that deserves the most thought. One thing I think none of us can really know is after what number of fights does a fighter really know almost everyhting he is going to learn? 50-75-100-more? Manny is strong evidence that fighters can learn into their fiftieth fight. Ray Robinson, by his own account, really wasn't complete until he had more than 50 fights under his belt. In prior generations the avergae number of fights a guy had when winning their first title was around 70.

But who the hell knows?

Here's another way to think about your point. In the past, a champion with say 75 fights was fighting another guy with 75 fights. Now a champ with say 40 fights is fighting a guy with 25 fights. Maybe it isn't the ABSOLOUTE number of fights at all. Maybe it is the RELATIVE level of experience that matters.

Yeah number 4 was the one that I thought could be PART of the answer. I also think they are bringing up fighters a little to fast and carefull. It seems like they never fight anyone tough untill they fight the champ a lot of times. Pac is different. He fought very tough comp early in his career. Think that the "Teddy Atlas school of thought," is wrong? I think they should test their fighters a little earlier and often. That could be a problem.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?
4. I think a 34 year old with 40 fights IS younger than the same 34 year old with 75 fights. BUT he's also less seasoned and less experienced. How does that tradeoff work?

I think the last of the ideas is the one that deserves the most thought. One thing I think none of us can really know is after what number of fights does a fighter really know almost everyhting he is going to learn? 50-75-100-more? Manny is strong evidence that fighters can learn into their fiftieth fight. Ray Robinson, by his own account, really wasn't complete until he had more than 50 fights under his belt. In prior generations the avergae number of fights a guy had when winning their first title was around 70.

But who the hell knows?

Here's another way to think about your point. In the past, a champion with say 75 fights was fighting another guy with 75 fights. Now a champ with say 40 fights is fighting a guy with 25 fights. Maybe it isn't the ABSOLOUTE number of fights at all. Maybe it is the RELATIVE level of experience that matters.

Yeah number 4 was the one that I thought could be PART of the answer. I also think they are bringing up fighters a little to fast and carefull. It seems like they never fight anyone tough untill they fight the champ a lot of times. Pac is different. He fought very tough comp early in his career. Think that the "Teddy Atlas school of thought," is wrong? I think they should test their fighters a little earlier and often. That could be a problem.

I look at Ray Leonard's early career as a "here's how it should be done" kind of thing. Now he never lost early, but he had some pretty serious challenges in front of him. By his tenth fight he was fighting serious guys and by his 15th he was fighting ranked guys. The thing is we need to educate fans that early losses are NOT all that meaningful. Because right now the morons shout EXPOSED! way too soon.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?
4. I think a 34 year old with 40 fights IS younger than the same 34 year old with 75 fights. BUT he's also less seasoned and less experienced. How does that tradeoff work?

I think the last of the ideas is the one that deserves the most thought. One thing I think none of us can really know is after what number of fights does a fighter really know almost everyhting he is going to learn? 50-75-100-more? Manny is strong evidence that fighters can learn into their fiftieth fight. Ray Robinson, by his own account, really wasn't complete until he had more than 50 fights under his belt. In prior generations the avergae number of fights a guy had when winning their first title was around 70.

But who the hell knows?

Here's another way to think about your point. In the past, a champion with say 75 fights was fighting another guy with 75 fights. Now a champ with say 40 fights is fighting a guy with 25 fights. Maybe it isn't the ABSOLOUTE number of fights at all. Maybe it is the RELATIVE level of experience that matters.

Yeah number 4 was the one that I thought could be PART of the answer. I also think they are bringing up fighters a little to fast and carefull. It seems like they never fight anyone tough untill they fight the champ a lot of times. Pac is different. He fought very tough comp early in his career. Think that the "Teddy Atlas school of thought," is wrong? I think they should test their fighters a little earlier and often. That could be a problem.

I look at Ray Leonard's early career as a "here's how it should be done" kind of thing. Now he never lost early, but he had some pretty serious challenges in front of him. By his tenth fight he was fighting serious guys and by his 15th he was fighting ranked guys. The thing is we need to educate fans that early losses are NOT all that meaningful. Because right now the morons shout EXPOSED! way too soon.

Also look at Pac as a modern example. Has two early KO losses and do they really mean anything now? NOPE.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I do have a few questions

1. What about medical advances?
2. Steriods?
3. Is there better understanding of Nutrition now that allows you to compete at an older age?
4. How about the game itself? These guys are not fighting as much so does that allow a 34 year old to be a younger 34 than that of the old days?

Just me trying to think of why.

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?
4. I think a 34 year old with 40 fights IS younger than the same 34 year old with 75 fights. BUT he's also less seasoned and less experienced. How does that tradeoff work?

I think the last of the ideas is the one that deserves the most thought. One thing I think none of us can really know is after what number of fights does a fighter really know almost everyhting he is going to learn? 50-75-100-more? Manny is strong evidence that fighters can learn into their fiftieth fight. Ray Robinson, by his own account, really wasn't complete until he had more than 50 fights under his belt. In prior generations the avergae number of fights a guy had when winning their first title was around 70.

But who the hell knows?

Here's another way to think about your point. In the past, a champion with say 75 fights was fighting another guy with 75 fights. Now a champ with say 40 fights is fighting a guy with 25 fights. Maybe it isn't the ABSOLOUTE number of fights at all. Maybe it is the RELATIVE level of experience that matters.

Yeah number 4 was the one that I thought could be PART of the answer. I also think they are bringing up fighters a little to fast and carefull. It seems like they never fight anyone tough untill they fight the champ a lot of times. Pac is different. He fought very tough comp early in his career. Think that the "Teddy Atlas school of thought," is wrong? I think they should test their fighters a little earlier and often. That could be a problem.

I look at Ray Leonard's early career as a "here's how it should be done" kind of thing. Now he never lost early, but he had some pretty serious challenges in front of him. By his tenth fight he was fighting serious guys and by his 15th he was fighting ranked guys. The thing is we need to educate fans that early losses are NOT all that meaningful. Because right now the morons shout EXPOSED! way too soon.

Also look at Pac as a modern example. Has two early KO losses and do they really mean anything now? NOPE.

Agreed. I think there ought to be a banner hanging in every gym in the world and over every ring every time there is a card that says Archie Moore, Carlos Monzon, Henry Armstrong, Alexis Arguello, Benny Leonard and Manny Pacquiao all lost early in their careers. SO WHAT!!!!!!

Isn't it true in a lot of sports that older guys are now able to stay competitive for longer?

The Celtics almost won a title last year. Federer's at relative old man status for his sport. I can think of a number of people in soccer, but Zidaine was arguably still the best in the game when he retired as an old man. Football's a little different because the physical demand burns guys out quick and athleticism has to be maintained, but look at Farve.

In boxing, I think it has to do with older guys having better technique, more experience, and being able to maintain their athleticism for longer. They take good care of their bodies even when they don't fight. Also, guys today don't fight at nearly the same rate anymore, so they can save their bodies a bit more.

As for medical enhancements, I don't think Floyd's career would've lasted if he didn't have good hand people and Yuri Foreman might still be able to compete at a high level by fixing a bad knee.

I completely forgot Randy Couture. Another old guy doing it in a combat sport. In fact, MMA is a great example of older fighters being able to have success.

Quote :

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think Wink
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?

I can't disagree with this any stronger.

Steroids, nutrition and medical advances all slow the aging process and allow older fighters to feel and perform at a "younger" level longer, but with more maturity and experience.

It's like that 'touch of gray' commercial, now these guys know what they're doing, and can actually still do it too!

For most of the older fighters have you noticed they are guys who take very good care of their bodies.
Martinez was in the gym a few weeks after the Pavlik fight, just working out trying to stay in shape.
BHOP for years ran most days to keep his weight from going up too much in between fights.
Vitali and Wlad stay in good shape year round.
Marquez isn't known to have weight issues (part of that is he is small for the weight class he is best in at this point, 135, but you don't see any photos where he is out of shape).
Calderon-he is a great technical boxer who hasn't been hit alot during his career.

I think boxing does have a weakness among the up and coming fighters. But I also believe that there is a group of older fighters on their way out who have taken a very professional attitude about their bodies and their craft.

I think the avg Ring champ/no 1 age will go down pretty soon. Marquez isn't going to be around too long. Same for Calderon. There will be some fresh blood pretty soon.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

1. I can't think of medical advances that help 35 year olds that don't also help 25 year olds.
2. Steroids help all ages I think Wink
3. Nutrition clearly would extend the career o0f any given fighter than if he ate crap...but doesn't better nutrition help younguns too?

I can't disagree with this any stronger.

Steroids, nutrition and medical advances all slow the aging process and allow older fighters to feel and perform at a "younger" level longer, but with more maturity and experience.

It's like that 'touch of gray' commercial, now these guys know what they're doing, and can actually still do it too!

And your evidence that they don't provide similar improvements to youguns is what exactly? I mean all that stuff seemed to be an awfully big help to Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, the Carolina Panthers O-line, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, the entire East German swimming program, Michelle Smith, etc. when they were all in their twenties.

The other error in your reasoning, in my view, is the notion that AGE gives one experience in boxing, But that isn't true. FIGHTING gives on experience. What I mean is who has more useful boxing experience, a 27 year olf with 60 fights or a 35 year old with 40 fights?

[quote="captainanddew"]For most of the older fighters have you noticed they are guys who take very good care of their bodies.
Martinez was in the gym a few weeks after the Pavlik fight, just working out trying to stay in shape.
BHOP for years ran most days to keep his weight from going up too much in between fights.
Vitali and Wlad stay in good shape year round.
Marquez isn't known to have weight issues (part of that is he is small for the weight class he is best in at this point, 135, but you don't see any photos where he is out of shape).
Calderon-he is a great technical boxer who hasn't been hit alot during his career.

I think boxing does have a weakness among the up and coming fighters. But I also believe that there is a group of older fighters on their way out who have taken a very professional attitude about their bodies and their craft.

I think the avg Ring champ/no 1 age will go down pretty soon. Marquez isn't going to be around too long. Same for Calderon. There will be some fresh blood pretty soon.[/quote]

Go look at the top tweny or so in each division and check out the ages. More than a little scary.

Rafael Marquez could knock off JuanMa Lopez! lol

Marble, I think athletes in all pro sports are aging better due to nutrition and training. As a result they are staying productive longer. I know that is certainly the case in the NHL, and I don't think it's because the current crop of young hockey players are inferior to previous generations.

ahh marble,great post.i missed these types of posts after you left the schoolyard only thing i can think to add,not sure if someone else mentioned it haven't read all replies yet,is that age increases as bout frequecy decreases.less activity,less wear & tear,more longevity