BoxRec

A topic close to my heart - just two weeks off my 35th birthday - I wondered, in light of the fall of Pickering and Witter and the about turn by McCullough how much truth there is in some of the cliches we apply to fighters, their primes, age etc.

1 - A fighter can grow old over night.

I'm trying to think of an example of a fighter being on a strong run of form and then suddenly not having it in a fight? I can't think of an obvious example of this.

2 - You have to live the life.

Really, for every Hopkins, there is a Duran. Hatton is an interesting case in point - doesn't live it between fights but submits himself completely to the job for 28 weeks a year, 42 if he has three fights. Can he really damage his reflex, stamina by indulging outside camp. Is there any evidence in fact on this?

3 - The last thing a fighter loses is his punch.

Is this true, surely speed is a crucial element of punch power - Roy Jones for example isn't flattening anyone without his trademark speed. How many middle age knockout artists do we ever see. Or do punchers fade earlier in truth?

4 - He's not been in many wars and he hasn't got style built for longevity.

Junior Witter certainly hasn't been in wars and does have an evasive style, is a strict trainer and yet his performance levels have dulled. Do wars really curtail your capabilities? McCullough still eager at 37 despite many wars. Is any style really built for longevity, if you dont trade on power and aggression you rely on reflex and speed, don't they depart first?

I don't think age is that much a factor as most people seem to assume though
this is a viewpoint that has changed since George Foremans comeback, I think the
heavier you are the easier it is - It wouldn't be viable for a 35 year old light flyweight to
keep giving out vintage performances.

If someone has been caning the drink and drugs for 20 years then 35 years old is
old, if you look after yourself then it isn't. Look at Matt Skelton (Or Martin Rogan)
though in those cases they did start late and the body won't have had the wear and tear
of someone like Wayne McCullogh who started boxing at 9 years old.
It is all subjective though if you show me an 'old' 35 year old and I will show you
someone who has been knocking themselves about..

Good thread mate, I'll get my thinking cap on.

Morales is one fighter who went from brilliance to really deteriorating, but that may have been more to do with his opponents. When was his last easy fight!

What about mentality?

Fighters don't just age physically they also lose motivation and desire.

When your young most of us don't think about being fit, you just are, and the training fine tunes it.
When you get older (35plus), you have to train just to get the level of fitness that you walked around at 25. The fine tuning is hard to find when older.

DavidPayne wrote:A topic close to my heart - just two weeks off my 35th birthday - I wondered, in light of the fall of Pickering and Witter and the about turn by McCullough how much truth there is in some of the cliches we apply to fighters, their primes, age etc.

1 - A fighter can grow old over night.

I'm trying to think of an example of a fighter being on a strong run of form and then suddenly not having it in a fight? I can't think of an obvious example of this.

2 - You have to live the life.

Really, for every Hopkins, there is a Duran. Hatton is an interesting case in point - doesn't live it between fights but submits himself completely to the job for 28 weeks a year, 42 if he has three fights. Can he really damage his reflex, stamina by indulging outside camp. Is there any evidence in fact on this?

3 - The last thing a fighter loses is his punch.

Is this true, surely speed is a crucial element of punch power - Roy Jones for example isn't flattening anyone without his trademark speed. How many middle age knockout artists do we ever see. Or do punchers fade earlier in truth?

4 - He's not been in many wars and he hasn't got style built for longevity.

Junior Witter certainly hasn't been in wars and does have an evasive style, is a strict trainer and yet his performance levels have dulled. Do wars really curtail your capabilities? McCullough still eager at 37 despite many wars. Is any style really built for longevity, if you dont trade on power and aggression you rely on reflex and speed, don't they depart first?

what about bowe? ko'd holy then got beaten up by golota..he aged over night

Roman Karmazin seemed to get old over night is his last fight.

1 - A fighter can grow old over night.

How about Tyszu (Hatton) - he was already old in terms of stamina/wear and tear but it hadn't been pushed in recent outings where he looked dominant. Holyfield-Ruiz is a good 1, Holyfield looked excellent in losing to Lewis but looked well past it against Ruiz

2 - You have to live the life.

Well each time you put on weight and get out of shape it deteriates your stamina. Each time you stop training for months you have to work hard to get back to where you were and as you age this all gets harder to do, if you dont let yourself go as you get old. Hattons only 29, and trains very intensely in camp and has great nutrition/supplements in camp and this lets him get away with things. Duran had many poor performances - Laing, Hearns, Leonard 2 and got away with allot by being a boxing genius and a man possessed when in camp

3 - The last thing a fighter loses is his punch.

Yes definately true, your strength peaks in your 40s, your stamina/speed in your 20s. So power can actually improve with age. Thats why Tyszu, Tyson, Foreman all kept big power past their prime but couldn't do the other things. Archie Moore was still a massive puncher in his 40s despite slowing he combined a BHOPs like style with a big punch. RJJ isn't getting as many KOs now BUT his powerpunches were full body swings and based on speed as his speed has diminished so has his power. A full powerpunch takes up more energy so a less fit RJJ won't have the energy to leap into a punch. I also think RJJ has been fearful to sit on his punches since his KO losses

4 - He's not been in many wars and he hasn't got style built for longevity.

Depends on the fighter, look at Vargas, Lacy they have been completely destroyed. Junior Witter's style was inheritantly flawed and is based on reaction speed, which is the first thing to go.

Asterix wrote:Roman Karmazin seemed to get old over night is his last fight.

I disagree there. Karmazin looked very good and probably won every round - he just got caught with a big shot over the top late on and never recovered. He also got up too fast, probably because he doesn't have the experience of being put down before. He was his fluid best until he got caught big.

Dioufy wrote:

Asterix wrote:Roman Karmazin seemed to get old over night is his last fight.

I disagree there. Karmazin looked very good and probably won every round - he just got caught with a big shot over the top late on and never recovered. He also got up too fast, probably because he doesn't have the experience of being put down before. He was his fluid best until he got caught big.

I thought he looked awful throughout the fight. You could tell that he was ripe for a KO throughout.

I thought he looked alright, and no one I know thought he was there for the taking - it was probably the first flush shot Bunema landed.

Old over night.

Most fighters have this - Hopkins - from Joppy to Robert Allen III a mark down turn in performance and one which (despite getting some wins) I don't think he ever recovered from.

Azumah Nelson - Smashing Jesse James Leija to losing to Genero Hernandez.

Michael Ayers - His turn of the Millenium IBO title run, aprubt ended via a shut out points defeat vs Sarmiento.

Leonard - Doing Okay in Hearns rematch, beating Duran - getting smashed by Norris.

---------------------
Regarding Witter - who is too say it is age or just the level of opponent.

His good wins over Corley and Harris were against possibly the two most inconsistent "world class" performers in the last 10 years.

Heavyweights do last longer, they dont have to kill themselves making weight, this is one ageing factor that is less talked about, but i believe one of the most vital.

DavidPayne wrote:A topic close to my heart - just two weeks off my 35th birthday - I wondered, in light of the fall of Pickering and Witter and the about turn by McCullough how much truth there is in some of the cliches we apply to fighters, their primes, age etc.

1 - A fighter can grow old over night.

I'm trying to think of an example of a fighter being on a strong run of form and then suddenly not having it in a fight? I can't think of an obvious example of this.

2 - You have to live the life.

Really, for every Hopkins, there is a Duran. Hatton is an interesting case in point - doesn't live it between fights but submits himself completely to the job for 28 weeks a year, 42 if he has three fights. Can he really damage his reflex, stamina by indulging outside camp. Is there any evidence in fact on this?

3 - The last thing a fighter loses is his punch.

Is this true, surely speed is a crucial element of punch power - Roy Jones for example isn't flattening anyone without his trademark speed. How many middle age knockout artists do we ever see. Or do punchers fade earlier in truth?

4 - He's not been in many wars and he hasn't got style built for longevity.

Junior Witter certainly hasn't been in wars and does have an evasive style, is a strict trainer and yet his performance levels have dulled. Do wars really curtail your capabilities? McCullough still eager at 37 despite many wars. Is any style really built for longevity, if you dont trade on power and aggression you rely on reflex and speed, don't they depart first?

Duran was the exception that proved the rule. Your statement is wildly inaccurate. Fighters who don't live the life and have truncated careers, or never live up to their potential are Legion. Fighters like Monzon, Duran, Chavez, who have long successful careers despite living it up, are a rarity, they more than likely have the right genetics to get away with it.

You also have to consider that Duran had an incredible level of skills. Even when out of shape, his defence was so good and his punch technique also, that he was able to beat even pretty high calibre opponents.

Even so, Duran lost to Kirkland Laing, a gifted but erratic fighter, more due to being in abysmal shape than anything else.

Rather than punchpower being the last thing to go, I think it is natural strength which is last to go. Some punchers rely on their core strength to deliver crushing blows (Liston, Foreman, for instance), while others need speed and flexibility (Hearns, Corralles). There is also physiological reasons why some people are big punchers (dense bone structure, thick and strong ligaments and tendons) which are not going to change over time.

Haven't got time to go through all the points, but that's my penn'orth on those two bits.

At top level, maybe Marvin Hagler got old over night when he fought Leonard.
Marvin had looked the P4P man against Mugabi, but just didn't perform anywhere near that level against Leonard.

Dioufy wrote:I thought he looked alright, and no one I know thought he was there for the taking - it was probably the first flush shot Bunema landed.

yeah i though Karmazin pretty much won every round before getting knocked out. didnt look like he aged overnight at all.

Esham Pickering seemed to get old over night against Sean Hughes - his reflexes just went.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:A topic close to my heart - just two weeks off my 35th birthday - I wondered, in light of the fall of Pickering and Witter and the about turn by McCullough how much truth there is in some of the cliches we apply to fighters, their primes, age etc.

1 - A fighter can grow old over night.

I'm trying to think of an example of a fighter being on a strong run of form and then suddenly not having it in a fight? I can't think of an obvious example of this.

2 - You have to live the life.

Really, for every Hopkins, there is a Duran. Hatton is an interesting case in point - doesn't live it between fights but submits himself completely to the job for 28 weeks a year, 42 if he has three fights. Can he really damage his reflex, stamina by indulging outside camp. Is there any evidence in fact on this?

3 - The last thing a fighter loses is his punch.

Is this true, surely speed is a crucial element of punch power - Roy Jones for example isn't flattening anyone without his trademark speed. How many middle age knockout artists do we ever see. Or do punchers fade earlier in truth?

4 - He's not been in many wars and he hasn't got style built for longevity.

Junior Witter certainly hasn't been in wars and does have an evasive style, is a strict trainer and yet his performance levels have dulled. Do wars really curtail your capabilities? McCullough still eager at 37 despite many wars. Is any style really built for longevity, if you dont trade on power and aggression you rely on reflex and speed, don't they depart first?

Duran was the exception that proved the rule. Your statement is wildly inaccurate. Fighters who don't live the life and have truncated careers, or never live up to their potential are Legion. Fighters like Monzon, Duran, Chavez, who have long successful careers despite living it up, are a rarity, they more than likely have the right genetics to get away with it.

You also have to consider that Duran had an incredible level of skills. Even when out of shape, his defence was so good and his punch technique also, that he was able to beat even pretty high calibre opponents.

Even so, Duran lost to Kirkland Laing, a gifted but erratic fighter, more due to being in abysmal shape than anything else.

Rather than punchpower being the last thing to go, I think it is natural strength which is last to go. Some punchers rely on their core strength to deliver crushing blows (Liston, Foreman, for instance), while others need speed and flexibility (Hearns, Corralles). There is also physiological reasons why some people are big punchers (dense bone structure, thick and strong ligaments and tendons) which are not going to change over time.

Haven't got time to go through all the points, but that's my penn'orth on those two bits.

But you could argue that Duran's ATG skills are what made him achieve such highs against Barkley and Moore after the low of Laing. You could also argue how good Chavez could've been had he not lived the life he did. Same for Tapia.

jake the snake wrote:At british title level i've seen Eamonn Magee in some great battles over the years ,but when he fought Kevin Anderson last year he seemed to grow old overnight,don't know if he has retired officially but i hope we don't see him in a ring again.

nah, Magee didnt grow old overnight, he got his legs smashed to pieces by hooded men with baseball bats and was never the same. understandable really.

And he had a series of gruelling fights, it wore him down in the end.

Great competitor though, have always liked him.

To be fair hook, I thought he was still performing well up until the accident. Vincent perofrmance wasnt great, but Jimmy was on a high at that point. the performance against urkal was cracking, but probably too a lot out of him, wasnt he cut really badly?

When he came back against vester, Tak etc... he looked a shadow of his former self, and probably only came back to prove people who said he couldnt wrong. Hardest man Ive ever met though, genuinely hard.