Should there be an age limit to box as a pro?

[Controversial]

We all know how dangerous the sport is and people gradually lose things as they age, be that speed, reaction times, fitness, ability to take a punch etc.. Obviously it differs from fighter to fighter, how many tough fights they've had, injuries etc but on the whole boxing is really a young mans game.

So should there be an age limit and if so what should it be?



.

[maverick23]

We all know how dangerous the sport is and people gradually lose things as they age, be that speed, reaction times, fitness, ability to take a punch etc.. Obviously it differs from fighter to fighter, how many tough fights they've had, injuries etc but on the whole boxing is really a young mans game.

So should there be an age limit and if so what should it be?

I agree that boxing is a young man’s game but I think you’ve answered your question with ‘it differs from fighter to fighter’.

Hopkins won a world title fight aged 49 and was 51 I think when he lost to Joe Smith Jr. At that point he was no longer a world class boxer but he still would have beat 90% of light heavyweights I think.

Boxers should be judged/licensed on a case by case basis and as long as someone is mentally ok and physically ok (pass a brain scan, a physical and it’s deemed that they’d be able to competitively fight) then they should be allowed a license.

[stujones]

We all know how dangerous the sport is and people gradually lose things as they age, be that speed, reaction times, fitness, ability to take a punch etc.. Obviously it differs from fighter to fighter, how many tough fights they've had, injuries etc but on the whole boxing is really a young mans game.

So should there be an age limit and if so what should it be?

I agree that boxing is a young man’s game but I think you’ve answered your question with ‘it differs from fighter to fighter’.

Hopkins won a world title fight aged 49 and was 51 I think when he lost to Joe Smith Jr. At that point he was no longer a world class boxer but he still would have beat 90% of light heavyweights I think.

Boxers should be judged/licensed on a case by case basis and as long as someone is mentally ok and physically ok (pass a brain scan, a physical and it’s deemed that they’d be able to competitively fight) then they should be allowed a license.

Yes, given what Joe Smith has done since - that wasn't too shabby from 51 year old Hopkins to be competitive for most of it.

[Controversial]

There will always be one offs, the vast majority of fighters aren't capable of doing what Hopkins done and Hopkins ended up being knocked out for the only time in his career at the end. Most fighters start declining in their 30s.

[MasterG]

I think it goes on merit.

Why shouldn't a boxer fight at 50 if he's like a 30 year old? Of course I cannot give an example but if a guy came along at 50 and he danced like a ballerina and hit sharp as a blade why shouldn't be be able to boxer.

[stujones]

Such a hard question - if the pass all the physical tests - then should we be allowed to question.

Whats really the difference between a 25 year old crap boxer (sorry) who is taking a lot of punches cause they are not very good vs a 50 year old boxer who is taking a lot of punches cause their reflexes are not what they were - providing they pass the tests?

Should we be stopping a career based on the number of losses - genuine question.

[Controversial]

I think it goes on merit.

Why shouldn't a boxer fight at 50 if he's like a 30 year old? Of course I cannot give an example but if a guy came along at 50 and he danced like a ballerina and hit sharp as a blade why shouldn't be be able to boxer.

I think it should be more down to protecting fighters from damage and from themselves, no matter how good Hopkins was at an older age he still would've been in some sort of physical decline. You could use the reverse argument, would you let a 12 year old become a pro fighter if he had the size, skill and fitness and was as strong as a 25 year old when we know a child's brain is still developing?

[Controversial]

Such a hard question - if the pass all the physical tests - then should we be allowed to question.

Whats really the difference between a 25 year old crap boxer (sorry) who is taking a lot of punches cause they are not very good vs a 50 year old boxer who is taking a lot of punches cause their reflexes are not what they were - providing they pass the tests?

Should we be stopping a career based on the number of losses - genuine question.

I think it depends on what the losses are, a journeyman who loses on points all the time and rarely takes a punch or someone knocked spark out all the time. It's a difficult one when you look at age too, lots of fighters pass physicals but are clearly shot to pieces, Muhammad Ali springs to mind versus Holmes.

[maverick23]

I think it goes on merit.

Why shouldn't a boxer fight at 50 if he's like a 30 year old? Of course I cannot give an example but if a guy came along at 50 and he danced like a ballerina and hit sharp as a blade why shouldn't be be able to boxer.

I think it should be more down to protecting fighters from damage and from themselves, no matter how good Hopkins was at an older age he still would've been in some sort of physical decline. You could use the reverse argument, would you let a 12 year old become a pro fighter if he had the size, skill and fitness and was as strong as a 25 year old when we know a child's brain is still developing?

That’s different though because as you say his brain is still developing and if he hasn’t been through puberty then his skull won’t be as strong to take shots.

Hopkins did show physical decline but could still probably beat 90% of light heavyweights. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to if that’s what he wants?

[Controversial]

I think it goes on merit.

Why shouldn't a boxer fight at 50 if he's like a 30 year old? Of course I cannot give an example but if a guy came along at 50 and he danced like a ballerina and hit sharp as a blade why shouldn't be be able to boxer.

I think it should be more down to protecting fighters from damage and from themselves, no matter how good Hopkins was at an older age he still would've been in some sort of physical decline. You could use the reverse argument, would you let a 12 year old become a pro fighter if he had the size, skill and fitness and was as strong as a 25 year old when we know a child's brain is still developing?

That’s different though because as you say his brain is still developing and if he hasn’t been through puberty then his skull won’t be as strong to take shots.

Hopkins did show physical decline but could still probably beat 90% of light heavyweights. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to if that’s what he wants?

For the greater good, in reality how many fighters are still a force over the age of 40, let alone 50, hardly any. At 50 we are talking about one fighter who ended up being knocked out. How he would’ve done against others is speculation as he never fought them. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves otherwise you end up with guys like Danny Williams getting knocked out at an age where serious injury is more likely to happen.

[stujones]

Such a hard question - if the pass all the physical tests - then should we be allowed to question.

Whats really the difference between a 25 year old crap boxer (sorry) who is taking a lot of punches cause they are not very good vs a 50 year old boxer who is taking a lot of punches cause their reflexes are not what they were - providing they pass the tests?

Should we be stopping a career based on the number of losses - genuine question.

I think it depends on what the losses are, a journeyman who loses on points all the time and rarely takes a punch or someone knocked spark out all the time. It's a difficult one when you look at age too, lots of fighters pass physicals but are clearly shot to pieces, Muhammad Ali springs to mind versus Holmes.

There is no way Muhammad Ali should have passed the physical. If the journos are to be believed - he couldn't even touch his nose. It was obvious to any man that he wasn't physically a well man. He could hardly speak. Not saying boxing caused his later issues as I think some decline can be noted even as early as 1974 - very very small compared but then it was noticeable with the build up to every fight after Norton there was a slowing in his speech and between Spinks and Holmes there was a major slur and an obvious slowing in cognition.

I don't know enough about the science - but not sure if (as an example) Amir Khan will have more neurological damage than someone like Peter Buckley. Not sure if it better to have the one punch and its over vs sustain punches even if it is hitting the arms first but there will still be contact with the head.

[Controversial]

Such a hard question - if the pass all the physical tests - then should we be allowed to question.

Whats really the difference between a 25 year old crap boxer (sorry) who is taking a lot of punches cause they are not very good vs a 50 year old boxer who is taking a lot of punches cause their reflexes are not what they were - providing they pass the tests?

Should we be stopping a career based on the number of losses - genuine question.

I think it depends on what the losses are, a journeyman who loses on points all the time and rarely takes a punch or someone knocked spark out all the time. It's a difficult one when you look at age too, lots of fighters pass physicals but are clearly shot to pieces, Muhammad Ali springs to mind versus Holmes.

There is no way Muhammad Ali should have passed the physical. If the journos are to be believed - he couldn't even touch his nose. It was obvious to any man that he wasn't physically a well man. He could hardly speak. Not saying boxing caused his later issues as I think some decline can be noted even as early as 1974 - very very small compared but then it was noticeable with the build up to every fight after Norton there was a slowing in his speech and between Spinks and Holmes there was a major slur and an obvious slowing in cognition.

I don't know enough about the science - but not sure if (as an example) Amir Khan will have more neurological damage than someone like Peter Buckley. Not sure if it better to have the one punch and its over vs sustain punches even if it is hitting the arms first but there will still be contact with the head.

There was a study on Ali’s speech, I can’t remember the numbers but the amount words he used gradually declined over the years where his speech was slowing down. How he got passed fit to fight Holmes I don’t know and what’s more amazing is he had another fight a year after that too!

No head trauma is good, cutting back on too much head sparring is now seen as being sensible. But yes is it better to take sustained punishment or get knocked out easily, I’m not sure, neither are good but ageing only makes this more dangerous as your ability to recover, your reflexes and strength decline over the years.

[stujones]

I think it depends on what the losses are, a journeyman who loses on points all the time and rarely takes a punch or someone knocked spark out all the time. It's a difficult one when you look at age too, lots of fighters pass physicals but are clearly shot to pieces, Muhammad Ali springs to mind versus Holmes.

There is no way Muhammad Ali should have passed the physical. If the journos are to be believed - he couldn't even touch his nose. It was obvious to any man that he wasn't physically a well man. He could hardly speak. Not saying boxing caused his later issues as I think some decline can be noted even as early as 1974 - very very small compared but then it was noticeable with the build up to every fight after Norton there was a slowing in his speech and between Spinks and Holmes there was a major slur and an obvious slowing in cognition.

I don't know enough about the science - but not sure if (as an example) Amir Khan will have more neurological damage than someone like Peter Buckley. Not sure if it better to have the one punch and its over vs sustain punches even if it is hitting the arms first but there will still be contact with the head.

There was a study on Ali’s speech, I can’t remember the numbers but the amount words he used gradually declined over the years where his speech was slowing down. How he got passed fit to fight Holmes I don’t know and what’s more amazing is he had another fight after that too!

No head trauma is good, cutting back on too much head sparring is now seen as being sensible. But yes is it better to take sustained punishment or get knocked out easily, I’m not sure, neither are good but ageing only makes this more dangerous as your ability to recover, your reflexes and strength decline over the years.

I often cite the Spinks rematch as one of the greatest performances of any boxer at any time for those reasons - but also the Berbick fight is up there for a similar reason. How was he competitive against big Trev.

Ali would often do some good psychology in later interviews - often saying "he's tired and old" as he knew he couldn't talk like he used to and also often asking interviewer to be truthful and ask them "do you think I have Brain damage?" - what journo / interviewer is honestly going to say "yeah you do" - Parky knew he wasn't cogntively the same in their final interview - but wasn't brave enough to say it on his show when Ali asked him - but you can just tell by Parky even when asked his body language was screaming "yes you do".

[olij999]

In Britain, you don't even get to the "should", as "can you" comes first - it would be age discrimination to deny someone a licence solely on the basis of age, so you can't put an age limit on it. But that doesn't mean the opposite, i.e. that an applicant automatically gets a licence whatever their age - it means the Board has to take account of all factors (ability, physical fitness, health, amateur experience, etc etc) when reaching a decision on whether to grant a licence.

[maverick23]

I think it should be more down to protecting fighters from damage and from themselves, no matter how good Hopkins was at an older age he still would've been in some sort of physical decline. You could use the reverse argument, would you let a 12 year old become a pro fighter if he had the size, skill and fitness and was as strong as a 25 year old when we know a child's brain is still developing?

That’s different though because as you say his brain is still developing and if he hasn’t been through puberty then his skull won’t be as strong to take shots.

Hopkins did show physical decline but could still probably beat 90% of light heavyweights. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to if that’s what he wants?

For the greater good, in reality how many fighters are still a force over the age of 40, let alone 50, hardly any. At 50 we are talking about one fighter who ended up being knocked out. How he would’ve done against others is speculation as he never fought them. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves otherwise you end up with guys like Danny Williams getting knocked out at an age where serious injury is more likely to happen.

Not many are a force post 40 but enough have shown their ability post 40 for me to think it’s wrong to put an arbitrary number on it.

I agree you need to protect fighters from themselves but using age as the barometer for that would be wrong when it should be on a case by case basis. Danny Williams shouldn’t have been allowed to fight years ago. He was denied a license from the British board due to that but the lack of overriding body meant he’s still taking beatings in the likes of Estonia, Albania etc.

[Controversial]

That’s different though because as you say his brain is still developing and if he hasn’t been through puberty then his skull won’t be as strong to take shots.

Hopkins did show physical decline but could still probably beat 90% of light heavyweights. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to if that’s what he wants?

For the greater good, in reality how many fighters are still a force over the age of 40, let alone 50, hardly any. At 50 we are talking about one fighter who ended up being knocked out. How he would’ve done against others is speculation as he never fought them. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves otherwise you end up with guys like Danny Williams getting knocked out at an age where serious injury is more likely to happen.

Not many are a force post 40 but enough have shown their ability post 40 for me to think it’s wrong to put an arbitrary number on it.

I agree you need to protect fighters from themselves but using age as the barometer for that would be wrong when it should be on a case by case basis. Danny Williams shouldn’t have been allowed to fight years ago. He was denied a license from the British board due to that but the lack of overriding body meant he’s still taking beatings in the likes of Estonia, Albania etc.

Yeah of course in this mythical scenario it would be a universally agreed age limit, in reality there will always be places you can fight with little testing or checks and balances in place. For me I just think how many top fighters are there over the age of 40, if they banned them all tomorrow would the sport really notice them gone? Even if they said the limit was 45 then 99.9% of fighters would still be able to fight.

[gilgamesh]

It certainly seems insane for someone to still be fighting at 50 to me, and even the great ones that were able to do it as well as anyone ever could still were clearly WAY diminished from what they had been by that age, and it was noticeable.

At the very least they oughta have a Senior Circuit where if you're gonna keep fighting past a certain age, you can now only be matched against other guys that are also in that age range.

A 50 year old big name going in against a guy in his prime is asking for trouble.

[Coco]

Boxing is a young man's game but every case should be taken on it's merits

[coneye]

Not to bad if the guy has a trainer / manager , who will only allow him to fight with guys of the same ability , But we all know thers promoters out there who will offer a couple quid more to outmatch him , in favor of the homeboy and fighters who will not give a stuff if they KO a 45 year old man to make a name for themselves ,

Some will even grab there dad and dance around the poor victim while he's on the floor .

Over a certain age ALL MATCH UPS , should be heavily scrutinized , and fair fights only allowed , but since this is never ever going to happen perhaps a age limit like in the ameteurs is required , save some fighters from themselves .

[joshj909]

I think the problem is that with most biological things, everyone is different. I do think there should be an assumption people past a certain age shouldn't box and need to get a medical exemption to do so rather than there being an admission that they can get in the ring.

45-55 mark is the one that needs scrutiny. Plenty of competitive heavyweights at the 40 years old mark and drop off after that but the oldest ever champ is Foreman at 46. First Arslan is on an 8 fight win streak between 49-53 years old. He's also 21-1-1 from the age of 44-53. I guess it's the health of the boxer and the quality of his opponent that need to be factored in.

[Controversial]

I think the problem is that with most biological things, everyone is different. I do think there should be an assumption people past a certain age shouldn't box and need to get a medical exemption to do so rather than there being an admission that they can get in the ring.

45-55 mark is the one that needs scrutiny. Plenty of competitive heavyweights at the 40 years old mark and drop off after that but the oldest ever champ is Foreman at 46. First Arslan is on an 8 fight win streak between 49-53 years old. He's also 21-1-1 from the age of 44-53. I guess it's the health of the boxer and the quality of his opponent that need to be factored in.

I think the HWs skew things as that division is often made up of slower, overweight or not particularly fit fighters. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that guys like Holmes and Foreman were able to have success at a later age as it’s not a fast paced division. But even then Foreman was quite carefully matched and was well behind against Moorer before knocking him out. Foreman was bashed up in several fights and lucky to get the nod in a few too as well as avoiding guys like Tucker and Lewis, so although a great achievement to be the oldest HW in history there is an asterisk next to it in my opinion.

[Grilling Machine]

On a good day we might still feel 90% in middle age (and therein lies temptation), but every fight's a much bigger what-if because we're way past our primes for a beating. And if you're so confident of winning then what's the point. Nobody appreciates a bully.

It's really healthy to continue in sports where we can adjust our risk according to mood, like Andy Macdonald.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... pics-paris

[wrighty]

I used to piss ball about in amateur gyms. Sparred lots but was mediocre at best, never had a proper bout. Sometimes I think I've got it still in my mid 30s and get on the bag and I'm in shit state after 3 rounds. I appreciate I'm just some schmuck.

I would like to see something set up to put a few quid in a fighter's pocket when they retire but I appreciate that sometimes purses aren't as high as one thinks and people stay because they love competing as much as they're chasing riches. For every Bernard Hopkins, you'll have 10 old champions being fed to the new kid on the block, it's a dangerous sport too...

[jamesmcdonnell]

Such a hard question - if the pass all the physical tests - then should we be allowed to question.

Whats really the difference between a 25 year old crap boxer (sorry) who is taking a lot of punches cause they are not very good vs a 50 year old boxer who is taking a lot of punches cause their reflexes are not what they were - providing they pass the tests?

Should we be stopping a career based on the number of losses - genuine question.

Older fighters are more susceptible to brain damage, due to deterioration in the vascular system with age.