Yesterday I watched Vitaly vs Adamek and it suprised me to see how well Vitaly moved for his age. He looked as good as ever and the guy is 40. We also have Hopkins who is 47 and beating up 28 year old guys. I remember when guys were washed up when reaching 37. How is this possible? Is it because of better roids? The fighters can add new muscle tissue beyond the age of 40. Does that keep them young?
Glen Johnson's still in great physical shape and can still perform well in the ring at 42. Did well vs Froch.
At heavyweight I think it is partly because of how the sport has changed. Now it is more about power and strength instead of reflexes and movement, which enables older guys to be competitive. Hopkins is a freak athlete, I think he would be a top-5 contender in his division in any era
Well Vitaly still has excellent reflexes and movement at the age of 40. I agree with you that fighters who rely more on strength and power can still be competitive at an advanced age. George Foreman is an example. Still I think that better roids and nutricians have a big influence.
He took 4 years off in the middle of his career and has rarely gotten hit flush, for extended periods, in any fight, which is something he, Johnson and Hopkins have in common. Furthermore, bigger men last longer. Hopkins is a much smaller who is also 5 years older. If you are looking for a roider, start there.
I dont really care if people are roiding or not. I think most fighters are roiding. It is the same with cycling. Look at how Holyfield has bulked up to heavyweight. He is probably a roider aswell.
The success of Hopkins has as much to do with his opposition's inability to box and complete cluelessness as anything else Substitute a prime Spinks, Saad, EMM or Marvin Johnson for Jean Pascal and Bernard is taking a beating... put Bob Foster in Pascal's place and Bernard is either getting stretched or he is in a shell the whole night
True, but I think this is bit different. I think Hopkins even at this age would be a contender in any era. The difference is that this era lacks a great champion who would dominate the field.
Put Adamek in Pascals place........you don't even have to go that far back to find somebody hard enough and accomplished enough to do the job. Its a question of not folding and being man enough to double your efforts. Guys like Pascal and Pavlik were soft cunts upstairs.
this theory doesn't hold water unless you believe the young opponents are NOT taking the same exact PED's I don't buy that for a second
A young man has a higher natural testosterone production. When a man gets older the natural production of testosterone decreases. That means that an older man will benifit more from PED's than a younger man.
no, it means, the older man would have more of a NEED for it surely, the success of young (very young compared to Hopkins) baseball players who used the same stuff proves these things can drastically alter a young man's performance
I believe everyones takes it, but, as rainmaker said, once you past a certain age, your body produce less testosterone. so the old guys will profit more from it. Typical case of diminishing return
But all that would seem to do is EVEN the playing field for the older person, not give him the advantage so my point stands
This is wrong. First, testosterone is just one type of steroid/PED. Second, a man's natural testosterone production will decrease relative to his own peak testosterone production; it could still be higher than another younger man's. Finally, to the point of what you said, exogenous testosterone beyond TRT levels raises your testosterone levels to supraphysiological levels either way, and all other things being equal, a young man's hormone receptors will likely respond better to anabolic steroids than an old one's will.
