BoxRec

Boxrec friends I ask the question above at what age would you deem a boxer unfit to carry on providing he passed all medicals and was monitored in sparring with restrictions in contests i.e 4x3 mins / 6x2 ?
The boxer in question was a 40yr old in the Yorkshire area. He didn't have the worst record on the scene but hadn't won for 5yrs. Having looked at some recent shows within the area there was a fight sanctioned with a guy (no names) who hadn't won in 70+ fights and was 40yrs old. I find this odd, some of the imports that also box within the region with a poor standard of boxing and long losing records just seems to be quite hypocritical of whoever sanction them. What level would you deem to be professional i.e Freddie Flintoff ? Looking around the scene they seem to be a few boxers at the ripe old age of late 30s to 40's. Should there be a rule for all boxers reaching an age ?

Very interesting debate, would like to here both sides of the argument from all boxrec knowledgeable people.

There should be no age limit.

There should be no age limit. As long as someone is mentally capable of deciding they want to fight, and then passes all physicals, they should be allowed to fight.

Let's take 3 legends of the same era. Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr & James Toney

these 3 guys were winning titles in the early 90s.

Now who could possibly tell Bernard Hopkins he shouldn't be fighting?
Less than a year ago, at age 49 he UNIFIED world titles in his 7th consecutive world title fight.
4 months ago he gave one of the most feared men in the fight game today his sternest test and came through 12 hard rounds.
The man is now 50 and he can still compete at world level.

James Toney is a future HoFer, one of the best in his day.
The man can't speak right and should have been stopped from fighting long before he stepped into the ring for prize fighter in 2013

Roy Jones Jr is 46, he's slowed down and he's past his prime.
But the guy is on a 6 fight winning streak against respectable opposition
The only reason people want to see him stop is that, considering how good he was and the level he was at, they don't think he should be fighting so far below that level and he is long done competing at that level.
But the man is fighting guys with winning records and winning, he can still speak well enough to hold down a position on TV and he obviously loves what he does enough to keep on doing it. Who are we to tell him to stop?

We can't set an age limit, the above shows that. Hell guys like Pavlik retire at 30, maybe 32 would have been too old for him.

What the boards that govern the game need to do is identify when someone like toney is not fit to fight on, not hand licenses to 48 year old guys who have been 10 years retired and want one last go at it, despite the fact the retired in the first place because they never had it left in the tank 10 years earlier

Depends on the style of the fighter. If they are a defensive fighter that avoids punishment, like Floyd and BHop then you can go on for a while. If you're Brandon Rios or Ruslan Provodnikov, by the time you're 35, you're running on a dozen braincells left and should probably hang up the gloves. Because if you don't you become like Shannon Briggs - effing insane.

Age shouldn't be the question here. Health should be.

Precisely.
Not everyone is the same.

Not so sure about differentiating between the 3 cases above. Hopkins may still be capable of competing at a high level at 50, but who knows what long term damage he is doing to himself? Just because he is not exhibiting symptoms yet, doesn't mean he won't. I don't think he gave Kovalev a stern test at all, either. It was one sided and at times, worryingly so, especially the last round.

The whole thing is a minefield. If you want to stop boxers competing for health reasons you should probably stop all boxers competing, full stop. It is a very damaging sport, end of. Many of the effects don't become apparent until years after the damage was done.

For me its just a free will thing. Ultimately if someone understands the risks and wants to do it, then they should be allowed to, however old they are.

Mandatory age limits make no sense.

George Foreman is the best example of why there shouldn't be an age limit.

George was a better fighter in his 40s than he was in his 20s, even if he was so slow, you could see his punches coming from last month!

Great replies from you guys. Now when I watched A Joshua box M Skelton I found that unpleasant viewing and im a trained boxer. Yet the fight was sanctioned which in my opinion could of ended with horrible consequences. This is very hypocritical to not allow a 40yr old to carry on with restrictions and careful match-making i.e. the area council have the final say to the match been proposed. Just very interested in both sides as you can guess its me in question. Interesting that well established promoters , managers get the go ahead for boxers to carry on and if your not a well known person

I think the difficult thing with this is that, as one poster said above, sometimes the symptoms and effects dont show until later on.

Which make it a near impossible thing to judge.

Myself,i think an age limit is no good,everyone is different,some have very hard careers and show no signs of damage even years after they have retired,there are some who show signs while they are still fighting at a young age,so basically i think it's an individual matter where no two are the same.We all know taking punches can cause harm later on in life but it can't be predicted,if they pass the medical then they should be allowed to fight,but maybe monitored a bit more and maybe increase the checks that they have to undergo.

davie wrote:Let's take 3 legends of the same era. Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr & James Toney

these 3 guys were winning titles in the early 90s.

Now who could possibly tell Bernard Hopkins he shouldn't be fighting?
Less than a year ago, at age 49 he UNIFIED world titles in his 7th consecutive world title fight.
4 months ago he gave one of the most feared men in the fight game today his sternest test and came through 12 hard rounds.
The man is now 50 and he can still compete at world level.

James Toney is a future HoFer, one of the best in his day.
The man can't speak right and should have been stopped from fighting long before he stepped into the ring for prize fighter in 2013

Roy Jones Jr is 46, he's slowed down and he's past his prime.
But the guy is on a 6 fight winning streak against respectable opposition
The only reason people want to see him stop is that, considering how good he was and the level he was at, they don't think he should be fighting so far below that level and he is long done competing at that level.
But the man is fighting guys with winning records and winning, he can still speak well enough to hold down a position on TV and he obviously loves what he does enough to keep on doing it. Who are we to tell him to stop?

We can't set an age limit, the above shows that. Hell guys like Pavlik retire at 30, maybe 32 would have been too old for him.

What the boards that govern the game need to do is identify when someone like toney is not fit to fight on, not hand licenses to 48 year old guys who have been 10 years retired and want one last go at it, despite the fact the retired in the first place because they never had it left in the tank 10 years earlier

Fantastic post

Junker wrote:Not so sure about differentiating between the 3 cases above. Hopkins may still be capable of competing at a high level at 50, but who knows what long term damage he is doing to himself? Just because he is not exhibiting symptoms yet, doesn't mean he won't. I don't think he gave Kovalev a stern test at all, either. It was one sided and at times, worryingly so, especially the last round.

The whole thing is a minefield. If you want to stop boxers competing for health reasons you should probably stop all boxers competing, full stop. It is a very damaging sport, end of. Many of the effects don't become apparent until years after the damage was done.

For me its just a free will thing. Ultimately if someone understands the risks and wants to do it, then they should be allowed to, however old they are.

umm................he is already 50-years-old.
As he gets older of course he is going to start having health issues just like every other human being that has ever grown old on this planet.
SOMETHING is going to take everybody down eventually. The people who live a "hard" life, whether it be a life of prizefighting, heavy drinking, decades of rotating shift-work etc tend to have a rougher time in their later years.

A boxer that is much younger than Hopkins.................say 20 years younger and already showing the effects of a brutal sport, maybe that guy should be stopped.
Usually saying "later in life" for boxers doesn't mean 50 it means 35 or 40-years-old if they have good fortune on their side.

Regardless of age it simply is not reasonable to expect anyone to take punches to the head for a living without some negative health effects later in life.

Several people have said they think there should be no upper age limit for a pro license. What about an amateur license? Age limit in UK is 40, which means if I want to have a competitive fight the only way to go is white-collar / un-licensed. Pisses me off.

I don't think so, the whole age thing is personal. Some fighters are washed up by 30 and others have yet to peak by that age. So it's unfair to force a fighter out because of his age. Boxing needs to reflect demographics and accept older fighters as populations age as well.

Good post Noxy I was forced out because of my age certainly not my physical medical side of things. I presented my training diary and was 3lb over my fighting weight.

George foreman Hopkins. . and I know I always
Mention him but henry maske 11 years no fight and boom wins he was over 42 ish when he came.back for revenge

I can't believe Matt Skelton is down to box again.

klitoris wrote:Depends on the style of the fighter. If they are a defensive fighter that avoids punishment, like Floyd and BHop then you can go on for a while. If you're Brandon Rios or Ruslan Provodnikov, by the time you're 35, you're running on a dozen braincells left and should probably hang up the gloves. Because if you don't you become like Shannon Briggs - effing insane.

Gtfo Shannon Briggs... Insane? Wtf are you smoking?

The guys straight cock diesel, a sculpture amongst men who is in the best shape of his life. Just because he likes to have fun cutting promos does not label him insane.

smh, only on boxrec.

johnreilly wrote:Several people have said they think there should be no upper age limit for a pro license. What about an amateur license? Age limit in UK is 40, which means if I want to have a competitive fight the only way to go is white-collar / un-licensed. Pisses me off.

There should be no age limit with amateur boxing either.

Horse wrote:

johnreilly wrote:Several people have said they think there should be no upper age limit for a pro license. What about an amateur license? Age limit in UK is 40, which means if I want to have a competitive fight the only way to go is white-collar / un-licensed. Pisses me off.

There should be no age limit with amateur boxing either.

I agree.

I understand that some physical effects may not become apparent until some years later, but how do you legislate for that ?

Some people are more prone to injury than others. It is a difficult one however if a boxer (amateur or pro) passes a medical then they are fine to box.

Attaching some arbitrary number to cover everybody does not seem to make sense ?

I still can't believe that in this day and age of equality that the various bodies are actually allowed to set a limit based on age only without any reference to medial condition.

Toney is a good case, I remember seeing a documentary, where apparently MRI scans showed that Toney had damage to his pineal glad, which meant that his levels of testosterone in serum had dropped dramatically, this in turn was part of the reason he couldn't regulate his weight, and meant he had raised fat levels and reduced muscle mass - should a fighter with this kind of damage be allowed to fight on - probably not.

Toney had skills which means he was able to fight on in less than top physical shape, and also had an incredible chin, however, he took many big shots late in his career, against much bigger men, and look at the state of him now.

Boxing doesn't have rigorous enough tests in place, considering how dangerous the sport is, this is the problem.

I don't think there should be an enforced age limit in any sport but if guys in their forties are still competing in the professional ranks there''s a problem somewhere.

Sklar wrote:I don't think there should be an enforced age limit in any sport but if guys in their forties are still competing in the professional ranks there''s a problem somewhere.

There's no problem in this case. The man in question has a great job and family.