Is Henry Cooper right about Audley?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 07 May 2004, 08:36

He said in The Scum today that fighters don't improve much after the age of 30, referring to Audley Harrison's 32. He could have a point.

J · Post by J » 07 May 2004, 08:45

lennox lewis?

bit of an exception agreed but.....
depends really I think its a bit of a stupid thing to say when the bloke was nearly 30 when he turned pro, of course he will improve the learning curve is steep when you first do something different to what you are used to. That just fact.
Also it doesnt allow for the individual exceptions as per the lion in my view.

Its sweeping generalism that may well be applicable for boxers who have been in the pro game for some time by the time they are 30 but as highlighted human nature deems that you improve rapidly at first, then a bit of levelling out normally occurs, its hwo you go from there that will decide how good / great or indifferent you will become.

p.s. didnt have you down as sun reader bennie

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 07 May 2004, 09:39

J wrote:lennox lewis?

bit of an exception agreed but.....
depends really I think its a bit of a stupid thing to say when the bloke was nearly 30 when he turned pro, of course he will improve the learning curve is steep when you first do something different to what you are used to. That just fact.
Also it doesnt allow for the individual exceptions as per the lion in my view.

Its sweeping generalism that may well be applicable for boxers who have been in the pro game for some time by the time they are 30 but as highlighted human nature deems that you improve rapidly at first, then a bit of levelling out normally occurs, its hwo you go from there that will decide how good / great or indifferent you will become.

p.s. didnt have you down as sun reader bennie

Pat Sheehan's column always makes me feel talented.
Incidentally, according to Boxrec, Lewis turned pro at 24. I think he peaked around 32 as a fighter. As Cooper says, there wasn't much improvement after 30.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=001853

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 07 May 2004, 09:48

Antonio Tarver, 35, turned pro at 28.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 07 May 2004, 09:52

Wales wrote:Antonio Tarver, 35, turned pro at 28.

Interesting. But is he a George Foreman-type exception?

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 07 May 2004, 10:05

I dont think so. Bernard Hopkins has improved over the last 9 or so years, I suppose it depends on the fighters style, i couldnt see a hatton type fighter improving much over 30 although the "text book boxer" like Hopkins can.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 07 May 2004, 10:36

Yes, it's wear and tear for sure. Benitez and Mando Ramos were both shot at 23. I'm just interested in what Cooper had to say as a rule of thumb.

mickeybeard · Post by **mickeybeard** » 07 May 2004, 11:32

I'd advise not listening to Henry Cooper, as a rule of thumb. He spent most of Lewis' career alternately slagging him off (remeber when he said he would've beton Lewis

) or praising him to the rafters. I don't expect it'll be much different with Audley.

Like a lot of people I have a soft spot for Our 'Enry, but I tend to tune him out when he starts talking about boxing.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 07 May 2004, 11:37

No offence to Cooper or his fans but he really seems to have many positive things to say about 'modern day' Boxing, from what I've read anyway.

As for fighters not improving much after 30, it all depends on the indixidual IMO, lengtht of career, physical and mental fitness, clean living etc and genetics are a much bigger factor IMO.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 May 2004, 14:40

Hang on, didn't Cooper himself say he was a better fighter when he was in his mid 30's than earlier in his career.

I don't really agree, I think you can change and adapt to become even better fighters.

Take Daniel Zaragoza, he adapted with age and IMO was a better fighter at the end of his career.

Wasn't Steve Collins in his 30 when he when he moved up. Also, Bernard Hopkins!

Obviously in most cases Cooper is correct, but I do believe fighters are at their strongest in terms of physical strength at around the 32/33 mark. Most brickies will say that they found the work easier in their early to mid thirties than in their twenties. I have sparred with ex fighters in their thirties and while they don't have the snap of the younger fighters, they are most definately stronger. If they can adapt they style to overcome new short comings in speed, reactions and stamina due to the age then they can become better.

Certain fighters still fight like they were twenty (the likes of Chavez), whereas other fighters (such as Holyfield, Zaragoza, Hopkins, Ali) change with their age and results in futher sucess.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 07 May 2004, 15:32

Henry Cooper is a bitter old curmudgeon.

What he says is patently nonsense, there are lots of fighter who improve in their 30's especially ones who start late.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 07 May 2004, 17:30

theres nothing like a sweeping statement. sopmetimes i get the impression with 'enry that he never lets a chance go by to give us the old "it was better in my day".fair enough maybe it was, maybe it wasnt but its not your day any more H.

as for the over 30 remark surely it deends a lot on the factors already mentinod plus a guys fighting style, how often hes fought, the kind of fights hes had etc etc

deadpan · Post by **deadpan** » 07 May 2004, 17:39

I heard a nasty rumour about 'Our 'Enery'.

Anybody else know it?

If you do, you'll know exactly what I mean.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 07 May 2004, 17:53

deadpan wrote:I heard a nasty rumour about 'Our 'Enery'.

Anybody else know it?

nope

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 07 May 2004, 19:14

Cooper was a bit of a bum in my opinion, and I'm convinced a lot of what he says is out of bitterness at never winning the world title himself....

He's quick to knock many boxers, all of whom have/had more to offer than he ever did.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 07 May 2004, 22:50

Bum is a bit unfair, come on now, he was no world beater, but he did ok when you consider what a tiny heavyweight he was. Was never anything like world class, but there's no shame in that.\

At least he took the fight to Ali, which is more than can be said for Bugner, who had a far better shot at beating and old and slow Ali.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 08 May 2004, 04:12

to be fair to 'enry he may have got a liitle further in his career if his skin round his eyes wasnt made of tissue paper.

as ali said after their 2nd fight "man i could hear him bleed"

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 May 2004, 05:24

neil r wrote:to be fair to 'enry he may have got a liitle further in his career if his skin round his eyes wasnt made of tissue paper.

as ali said after their 2nd fight "man i could hear him bleed"

I'm not so sure, I started a thread on Cooper and his cuts a while back in the Boxers of the Past section.

http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15206

He only lost about 4 on cuts.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 08 May 2004, 05:58

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Bum is a bit unfair, come on now, he was no world beater, but he did ok when you consider what a tiny heavyweight he was. Was never anything like world class, but there's no shame in that.\

At least he took the fight to Ali, which is more than can be said for Bugner, who had a far better shot at beating and old and slow Ali.

James, you're right, obviously there is nothing wrong with not being world class ...but there is when you talk as if you were.

If I want to hear an authority on heavyweights, I'd want to listen to Lennox Lewis for example, a man who has been right to the TOP and done it.

I just fear that Cooper is tied up in a lot of his own bitterness ..and taking rather odd swipes at today's boxers is his way of getting over it...

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 08 May 2004, 06:00

deadpan wrote:I heard a nasty rumour about 'Our 'Enery'.

Anybody else know it?

If you do, you'll know exactly what I mean.

I'm sure you're dying to tell us...

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 May 2004, 09:56

Loftgroov wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Bum is a bit unfair, come on now, he was no world beater, but he did ok when you consider what a tiny heavyweight he was. Was never anything like world class, but there's no shame in that.\

At least he took the fight to Ali, which is more than can be said for Bugner, who had a far better shot at beating and old and slow Ali.
James, you're right, obviously there is nothing wrong with not being world class ...but there is when you talk as if you were.

If I want to hear an authority on heavyweights, I'd want to listen to Lennox Lewis for example, a man who has been right to the TOP and done it.

I just fear that Cooper is tied up in a lot of his own bitterness ..and taking rather odd swipes at today's boxers is his way of getting over it...

Yes, but there are two different types of world class. Most people would consider the likes of Tua and Rahman as world class by today's standard. If Henry was around today (and a little bigger) I am sure he would give them a boxing lesson.

Also, I think Henry has some reason to be bitter, remember he was offered the chance to fight for the newly awarded WBC championship (which Jimmy Ellis had). Now, Ellis was a good fighter, but I think a match with Cooper would have been a tougher one to call, Ellis would have been the favourite - but it wasn't beyond the realms of possibility that Cooper wouldn't have won.

The BBBoC wouldn't sanction the WBC title, therefore Cooper would have have had to defend his title abroad. Compare that to today when the likes of the IBB intercontinental championship fight would get sanctioned - its hard not to be bitter, what an opportunity it would have been.

Is Henry Cooper right about Audley?

Is Henry Cooper right about Audley?

how about.....

Re: how about.....

Nah.....

Re: Nah.....