BoxRec

This is a bit of a nothing thread but I was looking at Marvins record again (anniversary of Hearns fight ) & saw that he was only 32 when he lost to Leonard. Almost 33 but 32. It's probably because I was in my late teens at the time but I always thought of him as older.

But in reality his last fight was younger than the following (apart from the obvious like Hopkins etc)....

Felix Trinidad (by a few weeks)
Michael Nunn - 38
Jermain Taylor - 36
Julian Jackson - 37
Golovkin is already 35
Sumbu Kalambay was 37
Chris Pyatt was 33
Steve Collins - 33

And I thought Nigel Benn was older but Hagler beats him by a month.
He was also older than Alan Minter who was only just 30, which surprised me.

Anyway, I said it was a pointless thread

His prime was before he won the title.

When Hagler retired a 65 year old man was considered old. Now 65 is the new 50. Pink is the new black and gay is the new cool.

Legend has it that 40% of babies born from their mothers today, will reach the age of 100.

Times change, evolution challenges convention. Only two things remains constant, the stream of babbling beauty running from Ronald Macintosh's lips and the devastating power of Joe Fournier.

Peace ✌

forcefraser wrote:When Hagler retired a 65 year old man was considered old. Now 65 is the new 50. Pink is the new black and gay is the new cool.

Legend has it that 40% of babies born from their mothers today, will reach the age of 100.

Times change, evolution challenges convention. Only two things remains constant, the stream of babbling beauty running from Ronald Macintosh's lips and the devastating power of Joe Fournier.

Peace ✌

How did u get that wee hand sign to post? Refuses to do it when I try

forcefraser wrote:When Hagler retired a 65 year old man was considered old. Now 65 is the new 50. Pink is the new black and gay is the new cool.

Legend has it that 40% of babies born from their mothers today, will reach the age of 100.

Times change, evolution challenges convention. Only two things remains constant, the stream of babbling beauty running from Ronald Macintosh's lips and the devastating power of Joe Fournier.

Peace ✌

Very nice post, FF.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:His prime was before he won the title.

He saw off the top contenders in America before he won the title but struggled against Antoufermo in his first title shot.

I reckon Marvin's prime was early-mid 80s.

dr_devious wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:His prime was before he won the title.

He saw off the top contenders in America before he won the title but struggled against Antoufermo in his first title shot.

I reckon Marvin's prime was early-mid 80s.

Agreed, he peaked around the time of the Minter fight or the Antuofermo rematch.

13 title defences, going on 70 fights, and a rock hard apprenticeship versus the celebrated middleweight contenders of Philadelphia = serious overall mileage.

Also, not many believed it when Hagler found out he was younger.

And most believed Mike McCallum and Dennis Andries were a few years older than was made official.

dr_devious wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:His prime was before he won the title.

He saw off the top contenders in America before he won the title but struggled against Antoufermo in his first title shot.

I reckon Marvin's prime was early-mid 80s.

I'd love to struggle like that, he won that fight quite handily. It's gotten closer through the years, maybe because Howard was all over Vito, but at the time it was a universally recognized robbery. As it was, Vito won a couple rounds.

Generally speaking, we remain physically more able for longer now. Times and if you look at the average age of death over the last 100 years, you will see a huge change.
1911-1920 - 51.5
1960 - 71.13
increased to 73.68 in 1980
2000 - 77.74
2014 - 81.06

Modern medicine accounts for most of the increase but also modern living and sanitation, lifestyle, nutrition, basic knowledge of how to live (smoking kills duh! and a diet of junk, chocolate and obesity ain't good) etc etc.

Personally, as someone who boxed in their teens, 20's and 30's and swapped to bodybuilding in 30's and now in early 40's, I am in my best shape ever today. Stronger, quicker, lighter, more muscle mass, more energetic than ever before. I used to run for boxing and be struggling to be 8:30 minute mile pace. Now I can crank them out at 6:35

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:His prime was before he won the title.

He saw off the top contenders in America before he won the title but struggled against Antoufermo in his first title shot.

I reckon Marvin's prime was early-mid 80s.

I'd love to struggle like that, he won that fight quite handily. It's gotten closer through the years, maybe because Howard was all over Vito, but at the time it was a universally recognized robbery. As it was, Vito won a couple rounds.

Gil Clancy also thought Hagler tired and blew it.

I felt Hagler nicked it and pulled it out late very late on. He did struggle after tiring in the middle rounds.

I felt it was a very good fight and that Vito had Marvin under some pressure in there.

Autobarn wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dr_devious wrote:
He saw off the top contenders in America before he won the title but struggled against Antoufermo in his first title shot.

I reckon Marvin's prime was early-mid 80s.

I'd love to struggle like that, he won that fight quite handily. It's gotten closer through the years, maybe because Howard was all over Vito, but at the time it was a universally recognized robbery. As it was, Vito won a couple rounds.

Gil Clancy also thought Hagler tired and blew it.

I felt Hagler nicked it and pulled it out late very late on. He did struggle after tiring in the middle rounds.

I felt it was a very good fight and that Vito had Marvin under some pressure in there.

I didn't see that at all

Marvin lost 2 years from his age when he found out he he was actually born in '54 instead of '52, so his age has always been a bit shrouded in mystery.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I'd love to struggle like that, he won that fight quite handily. It's gotten closer through the years, maybe because Howard was all over Vito, but at the time it was a universally recognized robbery. As it was, Vito won a couple rounds.

Gil Clancy also thought Hagler tired and blew it.

I felt Hagler nicked it and pulled it out late very late on. He did struggle after tiring in the middle rounds.

I felt it was a very good fight and that Vito had Marvin under some pressure in there.

I didn't see that at all

I'm not speaking for you, but I think because Hagler is a great, and Antuofermo is "just" good, people are kind to Hagler in the scoring.

Mind if I ask your age? None of the magazines or anyone I knew thought the fight was close. Kind of like McCallum being ducked it has grown through the years. I was 10, my live score was 13-2 and I was cheering for Vito. Rewatching it years later I could see giving Vito a max of 5 rounds.

I'm 36 and watched it a few years ago on a high quality DVD expecting Hagler to dominate, being at first disappointed and frustrated in Hagler then later enjoying it just as a really good scrap.

2 rounds only to Antuofermo? I'm stunned.

Hagler is great at breaking the opponent's resistance systematically- but not such a great distance fighter.

No arguments about the rematch. He got in that seamless rhythm of hurtful head and body shots, using the full repertoire to pummel his man.

Think, in mythical matchups, he'd have been given serious problems against aggressive maulers / pressure fighters Cerdan, Basilio, Fullmer, Lamotta and Graziano. Not saying they'd all beat him but to me that's Hagler's weakness, worrying about his stamina and not liking being crowded, losing steam off his punches.

Taansend wrote:This is a bit of a nothing thread but I was looking at Marvins record again (anniversary of Hearns fight ) & saw that he was only 32 when he lost to Leonard. Almost 33 but 32. It's probably because I was in my late teens at the time but I always thought of him as older.

But in reality his last fight was younger than the following (apart from the obvious like Hopkins etc)....

Felix Trinidad (by a few weeks)
Michael Nunn - 38
Jermain Taylor - 36
Julian Jackson - 37
Golovkin is already 35
Sumbu Kalambay was 37
Chris Pyatt was 33
Steve Collins - 33

And I thought Nigel Benn was older but Hagler beats him by a month.
He was also older than Alan Minter who was only just 30, which surprised me.

Anyway, I said it was a pointless thread

George Foreman was only 28 when he first retired after losing to Jimmy Young in 1977. I remember when he made his comeback in 1987 the boxing press made a huge deal of him being far too old and past it at 38

Autobarn wrote:I'm 36 and watched it a few years ago on a high quality DVD expecting Hagler to dominate, being at first disappointed and frustrated in Hagler then later enjoying it just as a really good scrap.

2 rounds only to Antuofermo? I'm stunned.

Hagler is great at breaking the opponent's resistance systematically- but not such a great distance fighter.

No arguments about the rematch. He got in that seamless rhythm of hurtful head and body shots, using the full repertoire to pummel his man.

Think, in mythical matchups, he'd have been given serious problems against aggressive maulers / pressure fighters Cerdan, Basilio, Fullmer, Lamotta and Graziano. Not saying they'd all beat him but to me that's Hagler's weakness, worrying about his stamina and not liking being crowded, losing steam off his punches.

I'm equally shocked by nicked. One of the worst robberies I've seen in the 4 decades I've watched the sport. Marvin had all-time stamina, nothing to worry about there. We just see two different fights and fighters. I never saw Marvin remotely gassed in a fight.

tobyh5 wrote:Generally speaking, we remain physically more able for longer now. Times and if you look at the average age of death over the last 100 years, you will see a huge change.
1911-1920 - 51.5
1960 - 71.13
increased to 73.68 in 1980
2000 - 77.74
2014 - 81.06

Modern medicine accounts for most of the increase but also modern living and sanitation, lifestyle, nutrition, basic knowledge of how to live (smoking kills duh! and a diet of junk, chocolate and obesity ain't good) etc etc.

Personally, as someone who boxed in their teens, 20's and 30's and swapped to bodybuilding in 30's and now in early 40's, I am in my best shape ever today. Stronger, quicker, lighter, more muscle mass, more energetic than ever before. I used to run for boxing and be struggling to be 8:30 minute mile pace. Now I can crank them out at 6:35

No offence but I think you have misread the data. Not got the stats to hand but I don't think the average age we live to as adults (if we compare similar demographics over time) has changed that much.

Those life expectancy figures take into account infant mortality rates (and, I would guess, a bloody Great War). So whilst medicine, treatment, sanitation, housing and nutrition has improved tremendously the real impact of this is in a massive decrease in infants and young children dying, which used to be commonplace.

By including infant mortality it decreases the average lifespan significantly. If these figures were removed the small increases over the decades would be more of less negated.

tobyh5 wrote:
Personally, as someone who boxed in their teens, 20's and 30's and swapped to bodybuilding in 30's and now in early 40's, I am in my best shape ever today. Stronger, quicker, lighter, more muscle mass, more energetic than ever before. I used to run for boxing and be struggling to be 8:30 minute mile pace. Now I can crank them out at 6:35

Enough of that. What are you dead-lifting?

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:
Personally, as someone who boxed in their teens, 20's and 30's and swapped to bodybuilding in 30's and now in early 40's, I am in my best shape ever today. Stronger, quicker, lighter, more muscle mass, more energetic than ever before. I used to run for boxing and be struggling to be 8:30 minute mile pace. Now I can crank them out at 6:35

Enough of that. What are you dead-lifting?

Same as Fury

gerryd77 wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:Generally speaking, we remain physically more able for longer now. Times and if you look at the average age of death over the last 100 years, you will see a huge change.
1911-1920 - 51.5
1960 - 71.13
increased to 73.68 in 1980
2000 - 77.74
2014 - 81.06

Modern medicine accounts for most of the increase but also modern living and sanitation, lifestyle, nutrition, basic knowledge of how to live (smoking kills duh! and a diet of junk, chocolate and obesity ain't good) etc etc.

Personally, as someone who boxed in their teens, 20's and 30's and swapped to bodybuilding in 30's and now in early 40's, I am in my best shape ever today. Stronger, quicker, lighter, more muscle mass, more energetic than ever before. I used to run for boxing and be struggling to be 8:30 minute mile pace. Now I can crank them out at 6:35

No offence but I think you have misread the data. Not got the stats to hand but I don't think the average age we live to as adults (if we compare similar demographics over time) has changed that much.

Those life expectancy figures take into account infant mortality rates (and, I would guess, a bloody Great War). So whilst medicine, treatment, sanitation, housing and nutrition has improved tremendously the real impact of this is in a massive decrease in infants and young children dying, which used to be commonplace.

By including infant mortality it decreases the average lifespan significantly. If these figures were removed the small increases over the decades would be more of less negated.

Very possibly. You sound like you have more knowledge than me on the subject and I was coming from a layman angle