LOUSY YOUNGUNS OR EXTRAORDINARY OLD GUYS

[quote="soonermark890"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Fighters can maintain their athleticism longer. Great fighters can fight at a high level to an older age. Many of these great fighters have the experience, skill and athleticism to beat younger fighters.

Why is this happening? In no specific order:

1. Enhanced nutrition & training methods - These benefit older fighters more because they allow guys to retain their athleticism. An older fighter can remain athletic enough that his better skill and experience will win out.

2. Enhanced medicine - Injuries can be treated better. Guys can recover faster and stronger. Two examples I used before were Floyd's hands and potentially Yuri's knee. I'm sure there are more.

3. Less wear and tear - The rate at which guys fight today is much lower. It allows fighters to rest their bodies more and fight at an older age.

4. Getting an inferior quality athlete and trainer - Fewer good boxers and trainers. MMA has sprung up recently as another option for guys with fighting talents further drawing from the pool of potential boxers. Athletes in Football, Basketball, Baseball and Soccer are getting paid more and more.

Guys from the 90s still reign supreme. Guys from the 70s and 80s notoriously burned out on drugs and too much too soon in many cases. Good older fighters is a trend that's likely to continue.

There just isn't a SHRED of evidence that numbers 1-2 are true more for older fighters nthan younger ones though, is there?

It's not that it helps them more. It's that it allows them to maintain. It has nothing to do with the younger fighters. It's that older fighters can compete for longer.

For #1 let's take BHOP. Let's say he's currently at 80% athletic prime. He's able to compete much better than if he was at 60% of his athletic prime, regardless of competition.

For #2 it helps all fighters equally. But if it allows a fighter to continue fighting at a high level after injuries, it will allow them to compete longer. If good fighters are able compete longer, they can still dominate at an older age.

Steroids are the big thing to me. Look at Bonds, McGuire, and other older guys we know were on steriods who had their best years at the end of their career. What about them?

What about Conseco and Giambi and the rest who were in their twenties? Again, you are making a logistical error. The issue is NOT does it make THE SAME GUY better. It does. The question is why would it make a 35 year old better than a 25 year old when both are doing the same thing?[/quote]
The only answer I can think of in that situation is experience. Think about it in a sport like baseball that guy has had way more at bats than the younger guy against the best pitchers in the world. Its like the older guy in boxing having many more fights at a high level of comp. Would that experience not help a ton?

Think about it this way. You take Amir Khan and put him in there with Shane Mosley but you give Mosley his Roids back. Who will win? Mosley is a little slower than Khan. But now Mosley has the roids that give him a little bit more handspeed than when he is off of them and Shane now has the HUGE advantage in experience. I know thats a far fetched example but hey its worth a shot. LOL

You are assuming Kahn isn't on them too. A logical error in the thought experiment I I think.

You are implicitly making the experience point that I think might be the best argument someone has put forth here. Perhaps the number of fights between the old guys and the young guard has widened leading to a larger than ever before experience gap. I just have no way of getting those numbers without a gazillion man-hours of work.

[quote="marbleheadmaui"]

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Fighters can maintain their athleticism longer. Great fighters can fight at a high level to an older age. Many of these great fighters have the experience, skill and athleticism to beat younger fighters.

Why is this happening? In no specific order:

1. Enhanced nutrition & training methods - These benefit older fighters more because they allow guys to retain their athleticism. An older fighter can remain athletic enough that his better skill and experience will win out.

2. Enhanced medicine - Injuries can be treated better. Guys can recover faster and stronger. Two examples I used before were Floyd's hands and potentially Yuri's knee. I'm sure there are more.

3. Less wear and tear - The rate at which guys fight today is much lower. It allows fighters to rest their bodies more and fight at an older age.

4. Getting an inferior quality athlete and trainer - Fewer good boxers and trainers. MMA has sprung up recently as another option for guys with fighting talents further drawing from the pool of potential boxers. Athletes in Football, Basketball, Baseball and Soccer are getting paid more and more.

Guys from the 90s still reign supreme. Guys from the 70s and 80s notoriously burned out on drugs and too much too soon in many cases. Good older fighters is a trend that's likely to continue.

There just isn't a SHRED of evidence that numbers 1-2 are true more for older fighters nthan younger ones though, is there?

It's not that it helps them more. It's that it allows them to maintain. It has nothing to do with the younger fighters. It's that older fighters can compete for longer.

For #1 let's take BHOP. Let's say he's currently at 80% athletic prime. He's able to compete much better than if he was at 60% of his athletic prime, regardless of competition.

For #2 it helps all fighters equally. But if it allows a fighter to continue fighting at a high level after injuries, it will allow them to compete longer. If good fighters are able compete longer, they can still dominate at an older age.

Steroids are the big thing to me. Look at Bonds, McGuire, and other older guys we know were on steriods who had their best years at the end of their career. What about them?

What about Conseco and Giambi and the rest who were in their twenties? Again, you are making a logistical error. The issue is NOT does it make THE SAME GUY better. It does. The question is why would it make a 35 year old better than a 25 year old when both are doing the same thing?[/quote]
The only answer I can think of in that situation is experience. Think about it in a sport like baseball that guy has had way more at bats than the younger guy against the best pitchers in the world. Its like the older guy in boxing having many more fights at a high level of comp. Would that experience not help a ton?

Think about it this way. You take Amir Khan and put him in there with Shane Mosley but you give Mosley his Roids back. Who will win? Mosley is a little slower than Khan. But now Mosley has the roids that give him a little bit more handspeed than when he is off of them and Shane now has the HUGE advantage in experience. I know thats a far fetched example but hey its worth a shot. LOL

You are assuming Kahn isn't on them too. A logical error in the thought experiment I I think.

You are implicitly making the experience point that I think might be the best argument someone has put forth here. Perhaps the number of fights between the old guys and the young guard has widened leading to a larger than ever before experience gap. I just have no way of getting those numbers without a gazillion man-hours of work.

Its not the number of fights that makes a larger experience gap. Its the number of quality fights. Quality over Quantity. They always say he needs to get more rounds in. BULL SHIT. He needs to fight better comp. That is the BIG difference to me. I think they come from the Teddy Atlas school now.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

You aren't explaining at all why young fighters aren't measuring up and using their youth to take them out like they have for 100 years. Can't you see that hole in your argument? Your point is "nutrition etc makes older fighters better than they would otherwise have been." That is true, but not relevant. Why? Because they aren't competing with younger fighters who AREN'T doing it. It is common to all ages. So the question is what is the INCREMENTAL factor?

My point is that the idea of youth as a factor has diminished. If a 40 year old can fight like he's 35, a 35 year old can fight like he's 30, etc. youth doesn't matter as much. A 20 year old will still fight like a 20 year old. A 25 year old will still fight like a 25 year old. I think it has a higher benefit to older fighters because they can retain their youth. Young fighters are already young. They are maxed out athletically.

If there is a decreasing number of young, talented fighters entering the sport and a good number of fighters who are effectively able to compete at an older age, the overall age numbers will change.

[quote="soonermark890"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Fighters can maintain their athleticism longer. Great fighters can fight at a high level to an older age. Many of these great fighters have the experience, skill and athleticism to beat younger fighters.

Why is this happening? In no specific order:

1. Enhanced nutrition & training methods - These benefit older fighters more because they allow guys to retain their athleticism. An older fighter can remain athletic enough that his better skill and experience will win out.

2. Enhanced medicine - Injuries can be treated better. Guys can recover faster and stronger. Two examples I used before were Floyd's hands and potentially Yuri's knee. I'm sure there are more.

3. Less wear and tear - The rate at which guys fight today is much lower. It allows fighters to rest their bodies more and fight at an older age.

4. Getting an inferior quality athlete and trainer - Fewer good boxers and trainers. MMA has sprung up recently as another option for guys with fighting talents further drawing from the pool of potential boxers. Athletes in Football, Basketball, Baseball and Soccer are getting paid more and more.

Guys from the 90s still reign supreme. Guys from the 70s and 80s notoriously burned out on drugs and too much too soon in many cases. Good older fighters is a trend that's likely to continue.

There just isn't a SHRED of evidence that numbers 1-2 are true more for older fighters nthan younger ones though, is there?

It's not that it helps them more. It's that it allows them to maintain. It has nothing to do with the younger fighters. It's that older fighters can compete for longer.

For #1 let's take BHOP. Let's say he's currently at 80% athletic prime. He's able to compete much better than if he was at 60% of his athletic prime, regardless of competition.

For #2 it helps all fighters equally. But if it allows a fighter to continue fighting at a high level after injuries, it will allow them to compete longer. If good fighters are able compete longer, they can still dominate at an older age.

Steroids are the big thing to me. Look at Bonds, McGuire, and other older guys we know were on steriods who had their best years at the end of their career. What about them?

What about Conseco and Giambi and the rest who were in their twenties? Again, you are making a logistical error. The issue is NOT does it make THE SAME GUY better. It does. The question is why would it make a 35 year old better than a 25 year old when both are doing the same thing?[/quote]
The only answer I can think of in that situation is experience. Think about it in a sport like baseball that guy has had way more at bats than the younger guy against the best pitchers in the world. Its like the older guy in boxing having many more fights at a high level of comp. Would that experience not help a ton?

Think about it this way. You take Amir Khan and put him in there with Shane Mosley but you give Mosley his Roids back. Who will win? Mosley is a little slower than Khan. But now Mosley has the roids that give him a little bit more handspeed than when he is off of them and Shane now has the HUGE advantage in experience. I know thats a far fetched example but hey its worth a shot. LOL

You are assuming Kahn isn't on them too. A logical error in the thought experiment I I think.

You are implicitly making the experience point that I think might be the best argument someone has put forth here. Perhaps the number of fights between the old guys and the young guard has widened leading to a larger than ever before experience gap. I just have no way of getting those numbers without a gazillion man-hours of work.

Its not the number of fights that makes a larger experience gap. Its the number of quality fights. Quality over Quantity. They always say he needs to get more rounds in. BULL SHIT. He needs to fight better comp. That is the BIG difference to me. I think they come from the Teddy Atlas school now.

I completely agree. But trying to quantify "quality fights" for comparison purposes would cause me to commit Hari Kiri!

I love that Kosta fought and aging but still formidable Juan freaking LaPorte in his FOURTH fight!

[quote="marbleheadmaui"]

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Fighters can maintain their athleticism longer. Great fighters can fight at a high level to an older age. Many of these great fighters have the experience, skill and athleticism to beat younger fighters.

Why is this happening? In no specific order:

1. Enhanced nutrition & training methods - These benefit older fighters more because they allow guys to retain their athleticism. An older fighter can remain athletic enough that his better skill and experience will win out.

2. Enhanced medicine - Injuries can be treated better. Guys can recover faster and stronger. Two examples I used before were Floyd's hands and potentially Yuri's knee. I'm sure there are more.

3. Less wear and tear - The rate at which guys fight today is much lower. It allows fighters to rest their bodies more and fight at an older age.

4. Getting an inferior quality athlete and trainer - Fewer good boxers and trainers. MMA has sprung up recently as another option for guys with fighting talents further drawing from the pool of potential boxers. Athletes in Football, Basketball, Baseball and Soccer are getting paid more and more.

Guys from the 90s still reign supreme. Guys from the 70s and 80s notoriously burned out on drugs and too much too soon in many cases. Good older fighters is a trend that's likely to continue.

There just isn't a SHRED of evidence that numbers 1-2 are true more for older fighters nthan younger ones though, is there?

It's not that it helps them more. It's that it allows them to maintain. It has nothing to do with the younger fighters. It's that older fighters can compete for longer.

For #1 let's take BHOP. Let's say he's currently at 80% athletic prime. He's able to compete much better than if he was at 60% of his athletic prime, regardless of competition.

For #2 it helps all fighters equally. But if it allows a fighter to continue fighting at a high level after injuries, it will allow them to compete longer. If good fighters are able compete longer, they can still dominate at an older age.

Steroids are the big thing to me. Look at Bonds, McGuire, and other older guys we know were on steriods who had their best years at the end of their career. What about them?

What about Conseco and Giambi and the rest who were in their twenties? Again, you are making a logistical error. The issue is NOT does it make THE SAME GUY better. It does. The question is why would it make a 35 year old better than a 25 year old when both are doing the same thing?[/quote]
The only answer I can think of in that situation is experience. Think about it in a sport like baseball that guy has had way more at bats than the younger guy against the best pitchers in the world. Its like the older guy in boxing having many more fights at a high level of comp. Would that experience not help a ton?

Think about it this way. You take Amir Khan and put him in there with Shane Mosley but you give Mosley his Roids back. Who will win? Mosley is a little slower than Khan. But now Mosley has the roids that give him a little bit more handspeed than when he is off of them and Shane now has the HUGE advantage in experience. I know thats a far fetched example but hey its worth a shot. LOL

You are assuming Kahn isn't on them too. A logical error in the thought experiment I I think.

You are implicitly making the experience point that I think might be the best argument someone has put forth here. Perhaps the number of fights between the old guys and the young guard has widened leading to a larger than ever before experience gap. I just have no way of getting those numbers without a gazillion man-hours of work.

Its not the number of fights that makes a larger experience gap. Its the number of quality fights. Quality over Quantity. They always say he needs to get more rounds in. BULL SHIT. He needs to fight better comp. That is the BIG difference to me. I think they come from the Teddy Atlas school now.

I completely agree. But trying to quantify "quality fights" for comparison purposes would cause me to commit Hari Kiri!

I love that Kosta fought and aging but still formidable Juan freaking LaPorte in his FOURTH fight!

Marble I think that might be the whole answer. The younger guys are being brought up way more carefully than ever before. This could have just occured recently. One guy to consider who did this a little bit was Tyson. How did that turn out? When he found a guy who was not scared of him he got his ass kicked. But even Tyson fought more comp that these guys today. Look at Allan Green. He has stepped up twice in his long career and he was not ready. He took it too easy. Now its backfiring.

soonermark890 wrote:

Marble I think that might be the whole answer. The younger guys are being brought up way more carefully than ever before. This could have just occured recently. One guy to consider who did this a little bit was Tyson. How did that turn out? When he found a guy who was not scared of him he got his ass kicked. But even Tyson fought more comp that these guys today. Look at Allan Green. He has stepped up twice in his long career and he was not ready. He took it too easy. Now its backfiring.

Tyson won his first title at 20! He cleaned out the division, mentally imploded and became a mess of a human being all before turning 25. How is that being brought up carefully?

Gumby wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Marble I think that might be the whole answer. The younger guys are being brought up way more carefully than ever before. This could have just occured recently. One guy to consider who did this a little bit was Tyson. How did that turn out? When he found a guy who was not scared of him he got his ass kicked. But even Tyson fought more comp that these guys today. Look at Allan Green. He has stepped up twice in his long career and he was not ready. He took it too easy. Now its backfiring.

Tyson won his first title at 20! He cleaned out the division, mentally imploded and became a mess of a human being all before turning 25. How is that being brought up carefully?

He never fought a live body and when he finally did what happened?

soonermark890 wrote:

He never fought a live body and when he finally did what happened?

I don't agree that the WBC, WBA, IBF champs and title challengers weren't live bodies. Especially when considering that the guy who beat him had lost to two guys he had beat, and that's his ability and sanity were declining. But he's the definition of a great young champ who would've significantly lowered the stats in the 80s.

Average age of Tennis Grand Slam Winners and runners up

1930-28
1940-26
1950-24
1960-25
1970-26
1980-25
1990-24
2000-26
2009-26

Average over the entire period is 25 years.

In other words the 2000 and 2009 periods are basically at the same averages as the sport has been for 80 years.

Can we put to bed the notion that nutrition, medicine etc benefits older athletes disproportionately?

Cuz it ain't true in hockey, tennis and basketball. All those sports have access to the same nutritional, medicianl etc "improvements."Something else is going on in boxing.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Average age of Tennis Grand Slam Winners and runners up

1930-28
1940-26
1950-24
1960-25
1970-26
1980-25
1990-24
2000-26
2009-26

Average over the entire period is 25 years.

In other words the 2000 and 2009 periods are basically at the same averages as the sport has been for 80 years.

Can we put to bed the notion that nutrition, medicine etc benefits older athletes disproportionately?

Cuz it ain't true in hockey, tennis and basketball. All those sports have access to the same nutritional, medicianl etc "improvements."Something else is going on in boxing.

I think it is what we discussed. In all those other sports you cant avoid the top comp. You can in boxing.

Gumby wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

He never fought a live body and when he finally did what happened?

I don't agree that the WBC, WBA, IBF champs and title challengers weren't live bodies. Especially when considering that the guy who beat him had lost to two guys he had beat, and that's his ability and sanity were declining. But he's the definition of a great young champ who would've significantly lowered the stats in the 80s.

But he wasn't a great champ. He had TWO defenses as THE MAN.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Average age of Tennis Grand Slam Winners and runners up

1930-28
1940-26
1950-24
1960-25
1970-26
1980-25
1990-24
2000-26
2009-26

Average over the entire period is 25 years.

In other words the 2000 and 2009 periods are basically at the same averages as the sport has been for 80 years.

Can we put to bed the notion that nutrition, medicine etc benefits older athletes disproportionately?

Cuz it ain't true in hockey, tennis and basketball. All those sports have access to the same nutritional, medicianl etc "improvements."Something else is going on in boxing.

I think it is what we discussed. In all those other sports you cant avoid the top comp. You can in boxing.

The best explanation we've uncovered that's for sure.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Average age of Tennis Grand Slam Winners and runners up

1930-28
1940-26
1950-24
1960-25
1970-26
1980-25
1990-24
2000-26
2009-26

Average over the entire period is 25 years.

In other words the 2000 and 2009 periods are basically at the same averages as the sport has been for 80 years.

Can we put to bed the notion that nutrition, medicine etc benefits older athletes disproportionately?

Cuz it ain't true in hockey, tennis and basketball. All those sports have access to the same nutritional, medicianl etc "improvements."Something else is going on in boxing.

I think it is what we discussed. In all those other sports you cant avoid the top comp. You can in boxing.

The best explanation we've uncovered that's for sure.

I just refuse to believe that a world wide sport has a bunch of guys who just suck.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Average age of Tennis Grand Slam Winners and runners up

1930-28
1940-26
1950-24
1960-25
1970-26
1980-25
1990-24
2000-26
2009-26

Average over the entire period is 25 years.

In other words the 2000 and 2009 periods are basically at the same averages as the sport has been for 80 years.

Can we put to bed the notion that nutrition, medicine etc benefits older athletes disproportionately?

Cuz it ain't true in hockey, tennis and basketball. All those sports have access to the same nutritional, medicianl etc "improvements."Something else is going on in boxing.

I think it is what we discussed. In all those other sports you cant avoid the top comp. You can in boxing.

The best explanation we've uncovered that's for sure.

I just refuse to believe that a world wide sport has a bunch of guys who just suck.

They suck on a relative basis

Quote :

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?

I never contended it wouldn't help the youngens, but I question the premise that help for youngens completely offsets the advantages older fighters get. What is that premise based on?

Tennis is a tricky sport to compare with because that sport requires reflexes and speed even more than boxing does to be successful and there is little room to adapt the game once that declines. It's like comparing the decline tumblers have over the age of 20 and to the development NFL players have in their early 20s.

There are other possible reasons guys are getting younger in other sports, like increasing numbers of athletes in sports like Hockey from Europe.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

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?

I never contended it wouldn't help the youngens, but I question the premise that help for youngens completely offsets the advantages older fighters get. What is that premise based on?

Tennis is a tricky sport to compare with because that sport requires reflexes and speed even more than boxing does to be successful and there is little room to adapt the game once that declines. It's like comparing the decline tumblers have over the age of 20 and to the development NFL players have in their early 20s.

There are other possible reasons guys are getting younger in other sports, like increasing numbers of athletes in sports like Hockey from Europe.

That the three other sports I could find data on had seen no increase in average ages. Boxing stands alone. Boxing is also getting increased numbers of athletes form Europe, so that's not it either.

I think it goes beyond the data though. Let's go down the list of top guys:

HW: The Klits are massive, but in tremendous condition. Vitali's much less athletic now, but the competition level is low. Resting and surgery extended his career.

CW: Cunningham comes from a military background so he's a fitness freak. He also started late.

LHW: Not that old.

Super MW: Not that old.

MW: Martinez is a noted fitness freak. He also started late and avoids punishment.

Jr. MW: Same.

WW: Floyd is a noted fitness freak. He's also a guy whose career has been extended by taking rests, having specialist for his hands, and avoiding punishment. Pacquiao falls in the extraordinary category because the way he is performing is almost unprecedented.

Jr. WW: Not that old.

LW: JMM is another extraordinary guy. He's fading, but his skills are top notch.

Jr. LW: don't know.

FW: Chris John is about ready to get chased out by younger guys, but he's stayed in great shape, been a great technician, and avoided punishment throughout his career.

I don't feel like going beyond that. But we have a few guys who started late, a few guys who have avoided punishment and wear and tear, a few who've had medical treatments to help them, many who are exceptionally skilled, a few guys who are just extraordinary and all of them keep in great shape and take care of their bodies. Also, people don't fight as often, rest more, and young skilled fighters on the decline (other sports and definitely MMA have had a direct impact on the talent pool).

Several fighters on that list move and perform "younger" than their listed age. I think part of that is they've been able to stay closer to their peak physically than athletes in the past. I think a lot of that has to do with nutrition, training, medicine, etc.

As far as other sports, I know the Celts have been held together by duct tape, trainers and doctors. Steve Nash, Tracey McGrady, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant among others are superstars who would be out of the league or severely limited without having had constant treatment over the years. The fact that Blake Griffin might have a long career or Shawn Livingston is even in the league is testament to medicine helping guys age better athletically. Andrew Bogut might even be playing this year. Football is even more drastic. There are numerous examples in every sport of guys who are performing at high levels at old age in part due to... and guys whose careers have been extended by nutrition, training, etc.

Yes these things benefit everyone. But if the top fighters can maintain closer to their peak longer, I think it helps them more because they are generally more skilled (RJJ is a good example of the flip side - a guy's whose maintained enough athleticism to compete, but doesn't have the skills to overcome his declining talent).

I think that older champions is a trend that will remain, unless their is an explosion in popularity. I think we'll continue to see records broken in plenty of sports because top guys will compete for longer.

Gumby wrote:

I think it goes beyond the data though. Let's go down the list of top guys:

HW: The Klits are massive, but in tremendous condition. Vitali's much less athletic now, but the competition level is low. Resting and surgery extended his career.-But 7 of top ten are 30+ and only one is as young as 28.

CW: Cunningham comes from a military background so he's a fitness freak. He also started late.-5 of ten are 30+.

LHW: Not that old.-Agreed

Super MW: Not that old.-Disagree. Five of ten over 30 and two others 29.

MW: Martinez is a noted fitness freak. He also started late and avoids punishment.-Four of ten over 30, five are 28 or 29.

Jr. MW: Same.-Six of ten over 30, two others 29.

WW: Floyd is a noted fitness freak. He's also a guy whose career has been extended by taking rests, having specialist for his hands, and avoiding punishment. Pacquiao falls in the extraordinary category because the way he is performing is almost unprecedented.Seven of ten over 30

Jr. WW: Not that old.-Probably close to what a boxing division has looked like historically.

LW: JMM is another extraordinary guy. He's fading, but his skills are top notch.-7 of ten over 30

Jr. LW: don't know.-b]Probably close to what a boxing division has looked like historically. [/b]

FW: Chris John is about ready to get chased out by younger guys, but he's stayed in great shape, been a great technician, and avoided punishment throughout his career.-Four of ten over 30 and a fair bit of under 25 talent on the horizon.

I don't feel like going beyond that. But we have a few guys who started late, a few guys who have avoided punishment and wear and tear, a few who've had medical treatments to help them, many who are exceptionally skilled, a few guys who are just extraordinary and all of them keep in great shape and take care of their bodies. Also, people don't fight as often, rest more, and young skilled fighters on the decline (other sports and definitely MMA have had a direct impact on the talent pool).

Several fighters on that list move and perform "younger" than their listed age. I think part of that is they've been able to stay closer to their peak physically than athletes in the past. I think a lot of that has to do with nutrition, training, medicine, etc.

As far as other sports, I know the Celts have been held together by duct tape, trainers and doctors. Steve Nash, Tracey McGrady, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant among others are superstars who would be out of the league or severely limited without having had constant treatment over the years. The fact that Blake Griffin might have a long career or Shawn Livingston is even in the league is testament to medicine helping guys age better athletically. Andrew Bogut might even be playing this year. Football is even more drastic. There are numerous examples in every sport of guys who are performing at high levels at old age in part due to... and guys whose careers have been extended by nutrition, training, etc.

Yes these things benefit everyone. But if the top fighters can maintain closer to their peak longer, I think it helps them more because they are generally more skilled (RJJ is a good example of the flip side - a guy's whose maintained enough athleticism to compete, but doesn't have the skills to overcome his declining talent).

I think that older champions is a trend that will remain, unless their is an explosion in popularity. I think we'll continue to see records broken in plenty of sports because top guys will compete for longer.

In response to your last bold, I think that is inevitable over the next decade anyway. The numbers I cited above were all boxrec sourced. The trends are NOT just the top guys. It is more sweeping than that.

On the older guys in other sports your assumption is that those represent trends. At least in Basketball and the NHL and Tennis, they demonstrably don't. Is all sports benefit from the enhanced medicine etc and that was the driver than all sports should see these jumping ages boxing is. But they aren't.

I THINK (THINK mind you) that we have kind of identified what the key factor might be. It migtht be younguns being brought along more slowly RELATIVE to the older generation. 50 years ago top old guys with 75 fights were fighting young guys with 50 fights. In other words BOTH were highly experienced. Today top old guys with 50 fights are fighting younguns with 25 fights. So perhaps the experience gap is larger than ever before. A theory anyway.

If it's true, in 5-6 years we should expect top guys to have 35-40 fights and be fighting younguns with 25-30 fights and maybe the sport gets younger again as the experience gap narrows.

15 round championship fights were not good for older fighters. Fighters with good stamina can hold on longer now that it is only 12 rounds.

Overall nutrition and physical fitness techniques allow fighters to stay fresh for a longer period of time.

I also think the overall talent in boxing has declined, so good fighters don't have as many "young lions" that can challenge them for their throne.

Just a few thoughts.

victor879 wrote:

15 round championship fights were not good for older fighters. Fighters with good stamina can hold on longer now that it is only 12 rounds.

Overall nutrition and physical fitness techniques allow fighters to stay fresh for a longer period of time.

I also think the overall talent in boxing has declined, so good fighters don't have as many "young lions" that can challenge them for their throne.

Just a few thoughts.

WOW! The bold could be a HUGE issue that no one has mentioned yet. The timing works almost perfectly!

It could be that any single 15 round fight benefits younger guys over older ones and it could also be over a career that those last three rounds add disproportionate wear and tear that accumulates over time. I can't prove the second point, but I'd be shocked if that weren't true! As a thought experiment, does anyone think JMM doesn't take significant punishment in the two fights with Manny over the last three rounds had they been fifteen round fights?

GREAT GREAT Insight!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

In response to your last bold, I think that is inevitable over the next decade anyway. The numbers I cited above were all boxrec sourced. The trends are NOT just the top guys. It is more sweeping than that.

On the older guys in other sports your assumption is that those represent trends. At least in Basketball and the NHL and Tennis, they demonstrably don't. Is all sports benefit from the enhanced medicine etc and that was the driver than all sports should see these jumping ages boxing is. But they aren't.

I THINK (THINK mind you) that we have kind of identified what the key factor might be. It migtht be younguns being brought along more slowly RELATIVE to the older generation. 50 years ago top old guys with 75 fights were fighting young guys with 50 fights. In other words BOTH were highly experienced. Today top old guys with 50 fights are fighting younguns with 25 fights. So perhaps the experience gap is larger than ever before. A theory anyway.

If it's true, in 5-6 years we should expect top guys to have 35-40 fights and be fighting younguns with 25-30 fights and maybe the sport gets younger again as the experience gap narrows.

I'm not so convinced that it's the younger talent being brought along more slowly that's causing this trend though. I think in many cases they have to be brought along slowly because they're not as talented as they're touted or have some glaring weaknesses that need to get worked out if they ever want to make the leap. And the ones who truly are special don't get to prove it because they're usually more valuable taking low risk, high reward fights or earning their way to the top. So it's harder to identify the true talent because of the lack of quality fighters and quality fights.

Another part of it is guys are only getting recognized for their skills as they get older because they keep winning. A few years ago a Martinez was still considered an untested, unknown fighter. I don't think he's a better fighter now than then, he just didn't have an opportunity to prove it. Maidana has looked better in recent fights, but he beat Ortiz with power and toughness to make a name for himself. I don't know that he didn't always have that. So in a lot of cases the best fighters in their divisions won't get recognized until they get older and earn a shot for a title or against a name guy. Look at Pirog, it's not like he's a kid and I knew nothing about him. Yet, I've constantly heard that Danny Jacobs could be special and that he'd handle Pirog despite the fact that Pirog was likely grinding away against tougher competition for years. Similar thing with Dzinziruk. I first saw him fight this year, but I'm sold on him being a solid fighter. I don't know how good he was when he was younger. That's kind of the point though. A guy can have a belt or a great record and be a weak fighter. Another guy can be a great fighter, but not get a shot due to politics. Moreso today than ever. It's so much less obvious whose really good. And because there isn't as much stirring, the cream doesn't rise to the top until later. Fortunate for them, a lot of older fighters have managed to keep their skills and bodies at a high level for when their time comes.

How many good fighters are out there right now, grinding away in relative obscurity? I feel like there's a whole middle class of solid fighters who will emerge along with the young talent of today as soon as the old guard goes down keeping the champion/top fighter age relatively high.