I was just watching Mosley vs. Collazo and the commentators mentioned how Collazo looked like the older guy and Mosley looked like the younger guy in the ring. Plus watching the fight against I was struck that Mosley is virtually just as quick, explosive and athletic as he has looked in like forever. Mosley is 35 Hopkins is 42. Jones is still fast at 38(?) and I still think he'd be fresher now had he not made so much oscillations in weight to appease Tarver, HBO, and the fans. Wright is 35 and still fighting at a world class level, he's recently lost to Hopkins, but Hopkins is an all time great and he had a draw against taylor before that who is in his prime and 7 years younger than him. You lookd at Leonard who at 35 was a shell of himself against Norris. Leonard had hard fights but he also took many breaks (years apart) in his career between big fights. Hagler looked far more removed from his prime than a lot of these guys at 33/34 when he fought Leonard. Same with Whitaker (albeit he had drug problem), I don't remember Duran looking as good either however he did make big jumps above his best weight. Even in MMA you have Randy Cotoure regainint the heavyweight title at 44 and recently stopping 28 year old challenger Gabriel Gonzaga at the most recent UFC.
Hopkins, Couture, and Winky are some of the best around. Jones and Mosley still have speed but are well past their best. It's more about styles of individual fighters than a trend IMO.
That reminds of when HBO was talking with Micky Ward. He was saying how fighters should aim to hit and not get hit, but his style was "to get hit, and then get hit some more" ::
As long as you run from the young fighters, you´ll do just fine. Put Hopkins or Tarver in with Dawson, put Winky in with Pavlik or Kessler and you´ll see their age, just like you will when Mosley fights Cotto.
Exactly, I made a post similar to this after recently watching that fight. Shane's reflexes and speed were right there and even when he did get visibly tired he was still able to maintain his offense. This more than anything let me know he's going to beat Cotto.
Very true. I think it has alot to do with two things: 1. Fighters are RICHER now. That means that they are more pampered, etc. 2. They fight far less frequently now (as a result of being richer).
Muhammad Ali in his late 30s looked like an OLD MAN, for example. In the Spinks fights he was "only" 36..but he looked Ten years older than Hopkins does at 42. This has alot to do with teh frequency of his fights and the punishment he took in fights with Shavers, Frazier, Foreman and Norton.
Fighters like Mosley, Wright, Hopkins and them would look their age if they fought the best of the best. Even Tyson today can look young if you put somebody like 5500 ranked heavyweight Tim Dudley up against him. One quick KO and people would be going nuts saying "Tyson's Back!!!!!!" ::
Exactly. I don't think any of the aforementioned has aged gracefully, especially Mosley. Shane was able to come back strong (somewhat), but looked anything but graceful in the 3 year span where the one win he claimed was highly controversial. Not sure I completely agree with you on the prospect of Cotto-Mosley, though. I do think Cotto will win, but certainly not in a rout or that he will run/fight circles around Shane. It is amazing that Hopkins can still do his thing at 40+, but let's not pretend that he looked like an old man in both Taylor fights, and even against Howard Eastman. As evidenced in the Winky fight, the secret to Bernard's success is to stink the hell out of the joint and use every part of his body when his fists just aren't enough.
The Thing about Roy is that he HASN'T "Aged Gracefully" N REED's Opinion... He's Probably a FULL TWO Notches SLOWER than a PRIME Roy Jones,yet even TODAY,U CAN'T Name 5 Fighters w/BETTER Handspeed...Compared to his PRIME,Roy's Handspeed is CLEARLY DIMINISHED,but what he Has Left is STILL Good Enough... But Look @ Roy's FOOTWORK...THAT'S where he SHOWS his Age... REED
As far as today's fighters, the best example I can think of for aging gracefully is Winky Wright. There hasn't been any dramatic dropoff in any given area (though no longer as slick as he once was). He's been at or near the top of 154 and 160 for the entire decade (this after having already been around the game for over a decade prior), and is still among the world's best fighters. I guess you can argue on Hopkins as well, but he had to dramatically change his style AND has become more selective in his opponets in order to remain around the game. But yeah, definitely not Roy. Much like Shane, you're ignoring a significant portion of time where Roy looked so bad that people were (and still are) calling for his retirement.
Not sure what you mean by "significant." Roy looked bad in one fight prior to 2003 and that was the first Tarver fight. I don't recall anyone saying he should retire after that fight. Certainly no one said that a few months prior when he fought Ruiz. Roy's been a pro for 18 years. Perhaps you mean "recent" as in the last three years.
of course I am. A 2-3 year period of your career isn't a significant amount of time? And in this day and age, who the hell calls for a fighter to retire while he's still winning? Besides, Roy is probably the worst possible example of a fighter aging gracefully, considering the perception among the majority was that he grew old overnight.
But that's IGNORING the FACT that Some Noticed "Slippage" N Roy as Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar Back as the Harding & Harmon Fights,MUZSE... Fighting @ Heavy Actually MASKED what Roy had LOST... Granted,NOBODY was Calling for Roy's RETIREMENT,but he STOPPED Resembling a PRIME Roy Jones THROUGHOUT an Entire Fight by that Point... REED
I'm not saying Roy aged gracefully, I'm saying "significant portion of time" is an overstatement. Facts: 1). definition of significant: of a noticeably or measurably large amount 2). The last three years represents 17% of Roy's boxing career...while it doesn't warrant the statement that he aged gracefully, in theory (and reality) that's not a "significant portion" of his career either. That's why I said "recent." See my point Hoss?
*insert smashing head against brick wall emoticon here * Fine. When you go almost 3 years between wins, and a good portion of that period in which people are calling for your retirement, then you are clearly no longer the fighter you once were. Happy?
Which is what I said..."recent." A good example of "significant portion" would be Holyfield. People thought he was shot when he faced Tyson the first time in 1996. (Roy was in his prime then BitchAss Jake)
Not for nothing, we're talking about fighters who still have it at an advanced stage of their career. Bringing up a fighter's prime is irrelevant to the discussion. You start from when the fighter was old enough to be considered in the latter stages of his career and work from there. If we're supporting the claim that Roy started showing signs of slipping as early as, say the Harmon fight, then that's six years ago. So for half of his post-prime, people have been calling for his retirement. Besides, I didn't even say a significant portion of his career. I said a significant portion of time (though I meant to say "period" instead of "portion"). Anyway, we both agree that he's a bad example for this topic.
