BoxRec

I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

no becauses the ozzies will get pissed at having the oldest pro

Seriously though I don't care how someone may look physically age affects everyone. Your speed and reflexes diminish so what is the point of carrying on? Most fighters refuse to believe they aren't as good as they used to be or just carry on for a big pay cheque, riding the wave of their past. I would have no interest in watching Tyson, Holyfield, Hearns etc.... fighting now, all they are doing is damaging their reputation and putting blemishes on their career.

Yes.

There should be an age limit as the body does not heal well after the mid-twenties.

Its a good idea and 45 would be about the right age, but with so many different commissions out there making their own rules it would be very difficult to implement.

dexter dunworth


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Yes. A boxer should not be allowed continue past 45 imo.

Tough call on how you could implement this. Another consideration is that 'aging' seems to occur a lot earlier in the lighter divisions. There are plenty of examples of Heavies who hit their prime in early to mid thirties, whilst most lower weight guys are pretty washed up by that point.

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the other hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

black panther wrote:

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

who's going to pay for these examinations? im not saying your wrong on the contray i agree with you

Adamj1987 wrote:

black panther wrote:

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

who's going to pay for these examinations? im not saying your wrong on the contray i agree with you

Licensing fees I suppose. Good point though, highlighting the fact with health issues its rarely black and white with regards to solutions. Many bodies around the world couldn't give two sh*ts about the health of fighters as long as they get paid. Look at Mexico allowing Margarito to fight again despite having his license suspended in numerous states in America.

If they are medically fit, then they can fight.

Some fighters can not imagine life after boxing, I know a few former fighters who think that. However, you try telling a person for whom boxing has been for 20 years that they are not allowed to fight, they will!!!! it the warriors heart and they will find a commission with lower medical requirements in order to do what they love.

They'll just go into the unlicenced world if you took away their licence, it's difficult to get somebody to stop doing something which they've probably been doing since they were kids.

I think the amatuer age limit is to low as I think if your fit enough your young enough (within reason)

Adamj1987 wrote:dexter dunworth


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

You seen the level of opponents though, they have all lost more fights than they have won.
I bet I could beat most of them :-)

black panther wrote:

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the other hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

Look at Foreman though. He beat Moorer aged 45 but his last four fights after the age of 45 were -

Axel Schultz - W MD12
Crawford Grimsley - W UD12
Lou Savarese - W SD12
Shannon Briggs - L MD12

None of them would have lasted 12 rounds with Foreman ordinarily, goes to show how he was on the decline so much that even no hopers were lasting the distance and giving him close fights.

Controversial wrote:

black panther wrote:

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the other hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

Look at Foreman though. He beat Moorer aged 45 but his last four fights after the age of 45 were -

Axel Schultz - W MD12
Crawford Grimsley - W UD12
Lou Savarese - W SD12
Shannon Briggs - L MD12

None of them would have lasted 12 rounds with Foreman ordinarily, goes to show how he was on the decline so much that even no hopers were lasting the distance and giving him close fights.

Yes but to be fair he beat 3 of those 4 and they was a bit more than no hopers and if you can hold your own and not get hurt what the problem of earning a living?

Controversial wrote:I think there should be an age limit, not sure its wise letting people like Holyfield carry on, he is never going to be the fighter he was. I reckon you should be forced to retire at say 45, what do you think?

before i came on to the thread i thought 45 :!: D i think at turning 40 they should be seriously monitored :!:

or maybe only allowed to box 4-5 rds bouts against similar opposition i.e not dangerous prospects.

This maybe the first time this link appears on this site:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... #stpa_o418
I am not sure its lawful in either the UK or Ireland to have arbitrary age limits in either professional or amateur boxing. If I am wrong about this then I think that the Equality Act will change the situation in the UK so it is definitely illegal to put in place restrictions solely based on age.

Brit Ryan wrote:This maybe the first time this link appears on this site:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... #stpa_o418
I am not sure its lawful in either the UK or Ireland to have arbitrary age limits in either professional or amateur boxing. If I am wrong about this then I think that the Equality Act will change the situation in the UK so it is definitely illegal to put in place restrictions solely based on age.

your talking about a blood sport where brain damage is common,the longer your career this increases.

Des1 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

black panther wrote:
George Foreman would strongly disagree with you. Each individual is different. Hopkins with his crafy style whereby he takes little punishment could go on forever. Aggressive fighters such as Ricky Hatton on the other hand tend to have a shorter shelf life. I think it is the responsibility of boards of control to look at individual cases to determine whether a fighter should be licensed or not.

What I do think would be a good idea is after a certain age/number of fights a fighter should be forced to undergo more regular screening/tests/examinations. Such a process would have surely helped in situations like the tragic case of Howard Clarke.

Look at Foreman though. He beat Moorer aged 45 but his last four fights after the age of 45 were -

Axel Schultz - W MD12
Crawford Grimsley - W UD12
Lou Savarese - W SD12
Shannon Briggs - L MD12

None of them would have lasted 12 rounds with Foreman ordinarily, goes to show how he was on the decline so much that even no hopers were lasting the distance and giving him close fights.

Yes but to be fair he beat 3 of those 4 and they was a bit more than no hopers and if you can hold your own and not get hurt what the problem of earning a living?

But the point is Foreman was one of the biggest punchers ever, he went the 12 round distance in his last 4 fights against guys that wouldn't have lasted 3 rounds before. Surely boxing is more than holding your own against fighters who once wouldn't have last 3 minutes with?

If you are good enough you are old enough, and if you are good enough then you are young enough... the problem lies with people being allowed to go on past the point they are actually good enough.

yeah exactly great point.

MatthewS wrote:If you are good enough you are old enough, and if you are good enough then you are young enough... the problem lies with people being allowed to go on past the point they are actually good enough.

Thats very subjective and open to interpretation. How many fighters in their mid 40's are still top of their game? Holyfield still thinks he is one of the greatest heavyweights out there, he is seriously deluded and in danger of getting seriously hurt. I think a limit of 45 is ample, plus it may egg a few of the old fighters on to start fighting more regular rather than fighting once or twice a year if they knew they only had a few years left to achieve anything.