One current boxing trend I find interesting is the success of older fighters. Ring Magazine’s top 2 pound for pound (P4P) boxers, Floyd Mayweather and Wladimir Klitschko, are the same age, 38, as a washed up Muhammad Ali when he faced Larry Holmes in 1980. Juan Manuel Marquez, 41, is #7 on the Ring’s P4P list. Bernard Hopkins, 50, is the Ring’s #2 Light Heavyweight contender.
I compiled age-related data on the current class of top boxers to look more closely at this trend, using the top boxers of 1981 as the basis for comparison. Data sources include Wikipedia, boxrec.com, Ring Magazine, and Big Book of Boxing (ratings as of Sept-81). The results were interesting:
****The current top 10 P4P fighters are, on average, 8.0 years older than their 1981 counterparts (34.5 vs 26.5)
****Current (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) champions are, on average, 4.1 years older, than their 1981 (WBA/WBC) counterparts (30.1 vs 26.0). No fewer than 9 current champions are 35 or older. In contrast, no fighter over the age of 35 appeared in the top 10 of any division in 1981.
POSSIBLE CAUSES
Some might say the elite fighter of today benefits from advancements in strength and conditioning, promoting greater longevity. Assuming this should apply across the sports world, I tested this premise by researching the average ages of top athletes in the 4 four major team sports: (MLB: top 10 Home Run Leaders, NBA: top 10 scorers, NHL: Top 10 scorers, and NFL: Top 10 Passing Yds. Leaders).
****In aggregate, the elite athlete in the 4 major sports is only 0.4 years older today than in 1981 (current=28.1 vs 1981= 27.7). This variance pales in comparison to that observed in boxing. What other element(s) unique to boxing might explain this?
Some might speculate the pool of quality fighters isn’t as deep today as it was in 1981. However, this is a matter of opinion and very difficult to prove (or disprove) statistically. The one quantifiable difference I was able to find between the two eras was in the activity level of the fighters.
****In spite of being 8.0 years older, on average, the current P4P top 10 class have engaged in roughly the same number of total fights as the 1981 P4P top 10 (42.6 vs 42.7). They are far less active than their 1981 counterparts, averaging 2.3 fewer fights per year. (3.5 vs 5.8). They were 3.1 years older, on average, than their 1981 counterparts when they started their professional careers. (21.5 vs 18.4).
****The champions of today although, on average 4.1 years older than their 1981 counterparts, have engaged 6.5 fewer fights (31.1 vs 37.6). They are far less active, averaging 2.1 fewer fights per year (3.4 vs 5.5). They were 1.8 years older than their 1981 counterparts when they started their professional careers (20.5 vs 18.7).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The results of this [admittedly limited] analysis support that elite boxers of 1981 aged more quickly because their careers started earlier and they fought far more frequently than their modern counterparts. The elite fighters of today benefit from starting his career at a later age and fighting less frequently, which promoting greater longevity. This suggests punishment endured and “wear and tear” are far more significant to the aging process of a boxer, than the actual chronological age. This doesn’t preclude the possibility of other contributing factors that are more difficult to quantify.
I compiled age-related data on the current class of top boxers to look more closely at this trend, using the top boxers of 1981 as the basis for comparison. Data sources include Wikipedia, boxrec.com, Ring Magazine, and Big Book of Boxing (ratings as of Sept-81). The results were interesting:
****The current top 10 P4P fighters are, on average, 8.0 years older than their 1981 counterparts (34.5 vs 26.5)
****Current (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) champions are, on average, 4.1 years older, than their 1981 (WBA/WBC) counterparts (30.1 vs 26.0). No fewer than 9 current champions are 35 or older. In contrast, no fighter over the age of 35 appeared in the top 10 of any division in 1981.
POSSIBLE CAUSES
Some might say the elite fighter of today benefits from advancements in strength and conditioning, promoting greater longevity. Assuming this should apply across the sports world, I tested this premise by researching the average ages of top athletes in the 4 four major team sports: (MLB: top 10 Home Run Leaders, NBA: top 10 scorers, NHL: Top 10 scorers, and NFL: Top 10 Passing Yds. Leaders).
****In aggregate, the elite athlete in the 4 major sports is only 0.4 years older today than in 1981 (current=28.1 vs 1981= 27.7). This variance pales in comparison to that observed in boxing. What other element(s) unique to boxing might explain this?
Some might speculate the pool of quality fighters isn’t as deep today as it was in 1981. However, this is a matter of opinion and very difficult to prove (or disprove) statistically. The one quantifiable difference I was able to find between the two eras was in the activity level of the fighters.
****In spite of being 8.0 years older, on average, the current P4P top 10 class have engaged in roughly the same number of total fights as the 1981 P4P top 10 (42.6 vs 42.7). They are far less active than their 1981 counterparts, averaging 2.3 fewer fights per year. (3.5 vs 5.8). They were 3.1 years older, on average, than their 1981 counterparts when they started their professional careers. (21.5 vs 18.4).
****The champions of today although, on average 4.1 years older than their 1981 counterparts, have engaged 6.5 fewer fights (31.1 vs 37.6). They are far less active, averaging 2.1 fewer fights per year (3.4 vs 5.5). They were 1.8 years older than their 1981 counterparts when they started their professional careers (20.5 vs 18.7).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The results of this [admittedly limited] analysis support that elite boxers of 1981 aged more quickly because their careers started earlier and they fought far more frequently than their modern counterparts. The elite fighters of today benefit from starting his career at a later age and fighting less frequently, which promoting greater longevity. This suggests punishment endured and “wear and tear” are far more significant to the aging process of a boxer, than the actual chronological age. This doesn’t preclude the possibility of other contributing factors that are more difficult to quantify.