Does age matter in top level boxing ?

Question

I see a lot of people mentioning age concerning the Hopkins Vs Calzaghe fight with B-Hop being 42 and Calzaghe being 36 but i dont seem to remember age being mentioned when Hopkins was schooling Tarver and Winky in his last couple of fights before the one with Joe, is it just sour grapes or a legitimate argument that age does matter ?

Answer 1

Frank, if you never do anything else I tell you to do, read Jack London's short story "A Piece Of Steak".  It explains the aging factor in boxing better than I ever could, and it is in my opinion Jack Londons best work, better even than his famous novels.

Short answer:  Yes age matters in top level boxing.

Answer 2

When Ali Fought Holmes---What Do You Think Man

Answer 3

Nope. It's the heart that matters.

Answer 4

Of course it does sometimes Frank as fighters hang on too long after their skills and particularly their reflexes start to fade.  Muhammad Ali is a good example of a fighter that fought a few years too many and I think that the same can be said of Evander Holyfield today who clearly is not the same fighter he was in 1996.  Boxing is filled with examples of guys that should have retired before they actually did.  Now on the other hand there are always exceptions to the rule.  Bernard Hopkins may not be quite as good as he once was but still a very formidable fighter who's skills are still intact even though he is past 40 years old.  Of course Big George Foreman fooled everyone with winning the championship at the age of 45 and Archie Moore didn't become light heavyweight champion until he was 38 years old and held on to it almost 10 years and well past 40 years old.   So I guess that it most cases age does matter but there are definetly exceptions to the rule.  Good question sir.

Answer 5

Of course age matters in boxing- your prime is your prime and you don't get another period in your life when you are at your physical peak.  Hopkins beat Tarver and Wright because 1) Tarver is getting old himself and is one of the most overrated fighters in the game today, and 2) Wright is another older, defensive fighter like Hopkins, so Bernard was able to rough him up enough to win a decision.  Hopkins' age has been showing since the first Jermain Taylor fight and maybe even before that.  A lot of people will point out George Foreman and say that he is proof that certain fighters "bloom late" but what they fail to mention is that before he knocked out Moorer for the title, he was getting handled for 10 + rounds and even before the Moorer fight, he lost decisions to younger guys in Tommy Morrison and Evander Holyfield.  If it was the Foreman of the 1970's, he would have probably beaten them easily.  Look at the B-Hop of 2001 or anytime before that- I mean, I have a real hard time thinking that Calzaghe could have beaten that version of B-Hop; if he could hardly beat a faded 43 year old version, then I have no doubt in my mind that a prime Hopkins (or Jones) would have taken him to school.  As far as a Pavlik fight goes- people want to see it, because they want to see if Calzaghe's 45-0 record is legitimate or not.  Most unbiased fans believe that if he had been fighting top opponents when he first won his title, he would not be undefeated today and he would not have held his title that long.  Beating faded legends does not really do much as far as convincing me if he is as good as his record.  Fighting and beating Pavlik (which I honestly don't think that he can do) would prove a lot about how "great" he really is.  And some people may say that Calzaghe is getting old himself, but being 43 like Hopkins was and fighting much better competition in his prime is a whole lot different than being 36 and having fought bums for the majority of your career, and then only at the end, fighting top opponents, and at 36, Calzaghe is closer to his prime than Hopkins is currently.  The reason Hopkins was preserved in his 40s is because he was so good defensively; the reason why Calzaghe is preserved at 36 is because of the weak competition that he has fought for the majority of his career.  I give him credit for finally coming over to the States, but as I said before- the Hopkins fight only proved my thoughts even more that if he had crossed the pond years ago and fought a worthy opponent, he would have lost easily.

Answer 6

d**n Blogbaba Made Dis Boy Hungry MMMMMMMMM Yummy

Age Matters But Hopkins Lost Not Because Of His Age Because He Fought A d**n Stupid Fight

Chris Guzman Main Man From Boston Signing Off

I Like Trees

Answer 7

Not everyone ages the same. Also its pretty ignorant of you to say that age didn't have anything to do with Hopkins' conditioning. He ran out of gas in the late rounds! I'm not saying that if the fight had happened 7 years ago that Hopkins would win, but Hopkins would not have gassed out as bad and he would throw more punches. So yes, age does matter. Especially when you're 43 years old. Calzaghe has been one of the few fighters to not lose much of anything with age SO FAR in his career. Let me ask you this: are you telling me that Roy Jones today is just as good as he was 5 to 10 years ago?

Also I don't think Joe has lost much speed or power so far so I don't think age is as big of a factor...I might be wrong, but Joe has proved that he could hang with the younger fighters. Also, don't forget Hopkins was 36, just like Joe, when he DOMINATED Trinidad. So like Joe, Hopkins' age was not a factor BACK THEN. So I believe that if Joe wants to be one of the legends of the sport he should fight someone like Pavlik. I think Joe is a great fighter and probably the best British fighter of all time. But if he wants to be mentioned amongst the greats like the Hearns, Haglers, Leonards, etc. then he has to take on another great fighter while that other fighter is his prime. I think Joe is up for the challenge, but I think Pavlik's promoter, Arum, wants Pavlik to stay at 160 for at least another year. So its on Arum's shoulders as well as Joe's. I also don't blame Joe for wanting to fight Jones because he is the bigger draw between the two and Joe would earn a lot more money if he fights Jones. So good for Joe and I don't have a problem with that. But beating Jones and this stage of his career is not saying much. Joe right now is a GREAT fighter who has a chance to become a legend and an icon in the sport, but he has to fight someone like Pavlik.

Jones' reflexes were not there when he fought Tarver and Johnson and that was 4 years ago! Imagine what Joe, who I believe is class or two better than Tarver and Johnson, would do to Jones. Joe has also proven that he has not lost much. He proved it against Lacy and Kessler. Look, age matters, some fighters just age differently and Joe is in that class of fighters who age differently.

Answer 8

well rocky is still going, he is like 62, you think he will be using a zimmer in the next movie

Answer 9

age can have an impact in two different ways. on one hand youth can be an advantage b/c his recovery time will generally be quicker and his stamina and energy will be much greater. On the other hand an older fighter can have an advantage b/c experience in the ring is a big factor in winning fights.

Answer 10

Well, Frank D, I'll say this much on the subject. Yes, age does matter and plays a part in boxing to a point, just as well as any other sport. It's safe to say that any man in boxing fights differently at 40 years of age, then he would at 25 years of age. With reflexes and endurance being the big difference when comes to the difference of age, a man will also become a little more cautious.

Now, on the flip side, in Calzaghe's defense, Bernard Hopkins knowing he's 43, had interest and agreed with fighting Calzaghe. Knowing his own age, if Hopkins is going to be willing to accept a challenge from Calzaghe, then there should be no excuses in his age being a factor. Hopkins has been in great shape his whole career and he was in shape against Calzaghe. Calzaghe at 36 years old is no spring chicken himself, so the same argument can possibly be made about him being on a down slope as well. Anyway, Hopkins accepted the match under the circumstances of his age and still feeling he was in good shape, but lost to Calzaghe, therefore Joe should get the credit that he deserves.

Youth does have its advantages, so it would be interesting to also see how Calzaghe would perform against a top, younger fighter like Pavlik or Taylor. With Calzaghe being the older fighter in that case, he would have the chance to reach deeply within himself to overcome what many would think is a tough task. If Calzaghe was to defeat either man, then we all can rule out age being the factor. If Calzaghe was to lose to either man, then many can fairly use the age excuse, just as many is using it now with Hopkins.