BoxRec

PS It was probably your "loss of liberty" spiel that tipped me over the edge....

Let's just have Holyfield plod on until he's 50 because the man is so deluded and the division is so poor that he keeps getting title shots......

The points about Benitez are good ones. Sometimes you have to save people from themselves.

Captain Hook wrote:Let's just have Holyfield plod on until he's 50 because the man is so deluded and the division is so poor that he keeps getting title shots......

Well, yes... You can only judge any fighter by the quality of the division he's in, and if Holyfield is good enough to push a top 5 fighter to a controversial MD, then that's good enough for me. I know Valuev being top 5 is a damning indictment of the heavyweights at the moment, but that is exactly why I think it's OK that Holyfield is fighting. I DO wish he'd retire, but I don't think there's any justifcation for mandating it. So long as he's kept away from the Klitschkos and Haye, I don't think he's going to get hurt.

Shirow wrote:I think these days medical technology should be up to charting any decline in boxers cognitive abilities, reaction times etc. As someones year of birth is no indication of decline on it's own.

If this is checked every year on licence renewal and if the results show a dip of say prescribed % since the first ever test that should do the job. The extra cost is probably the reason this won't happen though.

And let's face it, if enough green was at stake, I'm sure that it wouldn't be too difficult to find a doctor willing to falsify the results of a negative test.
In theory though, there is nothing wrong with your suggestion.

Captain Hook wrote:You bring out the worst in me Horse, you really do.

BTW Why can't a three-year-old get a license if there is no lower limit? If there's no limits surely they could? That's just unfair......

Ask 2 Unlimited....

PS If you were a horse you'd have been shot in the paddock for being so effing lame.. :)

You are such a big meany, Captain Hook. If a 3 year old is good enough to take on the division's best then why not?

Captain Hook wrote:PS It was probably your "loss of liberty" spiel that tipped me over the edge....

Let's just have Holyfield plod on until he's 50 because the man is so deluded and the division is so poor that he keeps getting title shots......

The points about Benitez are good ones. Sometimes you have to save people from themselves.

You don't believe in liberty, Captain Hook?

i think lower age should be what it is, 18..because your starting to become more of a man at that age. and upper age limit should all be down to ability and circumstance, like many point out, a lot of fighters are washed up by the time they hit 30, look at fernando vargas for example, whereas there are fighters who competed at a high level, such as archie moore, b-hop and george foreman where they were past 40.

oliverfennell wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Let's just have Holyfield plod on until he's 50 because the man is so deluded and the division is so poor that he keeps getting title shots......

Well, yes... You can only judge any fighter by the quality of the division he's in, and if Holyfield is good enough to push a top 5 fighter to a controversial MD, then that's good enough for me. I know Valuev being top 5 is a damning indictment of the heavyweights at the moment, but that is exactly why I think it's OK that Holyfield is fighting. I DO wish he'd retire, but I don't think there's any justifcation for mandating it. So long as he's kept away from the Klitschkos and Haye, I don't think he's going to get hurt.

The guy is completely fucked mate, he's lucky that Valuev is that slow...

It may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me. He can barely bloody speak..

Horse wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:You bring out the worst in me Horse, you really do.

BTW Why can't a three-year-old get a license if there is no lower limit? If there's no limits surely they could? That's just unfair......

Ask 2 Unlimited....

PS If you were a horse you'd have been shot in the paddock for being so effing lame.. :)

You are such a big meany, Captain Hook. If a 3 year old is good enough to take on the divisions best then why not?

Captain Hook wrote:PS It was probably your "loss of liberty" spiel that tipped me over the edge....

Let's just have Holyfield plod on until he's 50 because the man is so deluded and the division is so poor that he keeps getting title shots......

The points about Benitez are good ones. Sometimes you have to save people from themselves.

You don't believe in liberty, Captain Hook?

I believe in reality, Horse.....

You should try it son.

In your world we will have seven year olds fighting 56 year olds, probably in a ring cobbled together with rainbows and fornicating marmalade....

:)

Captain Hook wrote:I believe in reality, Horse.....

You should try it son.

In my World seven year olds would not get licences, because they would not be physically able to meet the standards. But if a wonderkid came along he would not have a silly age restriction standing in his way, if I had my way.

Captain Hook wrote:In your world we will have seven year olds fighting 56 year olds, probably in a ring cobbled together with rainbows and effing marmalade....

:)

A year ago I would have said 35, and to turn Pro 20. But something has happened to make me waver on my assumptions. A fighter came back to the gym after 9 years out, better than when He left the Game, He came back because He wanted too, want is powerfull believe me DD

Horse wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:I believe in reality, Horse.....

You should try it son.

In my World seven year olds would not get licences, because they would not be physically able to meet the standards. But if a wonderkid came along he would not have a silly age restriction standing in his way, if I had my way.

Captain Hook wrote:In your world we will have seven year olds fighting 56 year olds, probably in a ring cobbled together with rainbows and effing marmalade....

:)

Happy NY Horse......ps you're still a twot :)

And I bet you made Scott Harrison's year.....

The damage catches up with people later a lot of the time. They seem fine when they retire in their 30's or 40's only to become incapacitated very quickly after they hit 60 or so. Look at Floyd Patterson for example. I watched the Thriller in Manilla documentary and almost everyone interviewed on that who had been active in boxing at some point showed signed of speech impediment of some kind. That's a fairly terrible average. I would make boxers retire at 35, and hopefully they'll still have a future.