Is the combined age of opponents the weakest arguement ever?

**lparm** · 09-28-2009, 01:08 AM

Floyd's last 3 opponents had a combined age of 99 years old LOL

**Spray_resistant** · 09-28-2009, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by lparm

Floyd's last 3 opponents had a combined age of 99 years old LOL

See now Floyd is cherry picking graveyards.

**Konstantin** · 09-28-2009, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Spray_resistant

I come on here and have often read posts designed to degrade fighters by listing the combined age of two opponents like that someone how lessens their win over that opponent or said fighters current place is his weight division. I just think citing the combined age of a couple of fighters someone fought is the weakest argument ever in an attempt to discredit someone.
For example someone cites Hopkins and Jones as bad wins for Calzaghe by stating their combined age was over 80 when he fought them. As if they fused in to one really old guy and had 1 single fight with that bully Joe who took advantage of senior citizen Roy Hopkins jr. Or take Chad Dawson fighting Johnson and Tarver......yeah why is this young fresh fighter taking advantage of Antonio Johnson in the twilight years of his life?
I think its more quality of opponents that is important rather than their age. Since these were all LHW fights I cited name me 4 other LHWs listed who are better than the 4 who fought Calzaghe and Dawson. Tons of young fighters are ****, but we could also combine several of them and create one really really old guy that a good fighter fought too.....so next time think before you present and argument.

Really how often is this? Can you find more than one example?

**Spray_resistant** · 09-28-2009, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Konstantin

Really how often is this? Can you find more than one example?

Whenever there is hate there is some faulty argument, but no I can't find something like that as I do don't remember which poster posted exactly what on here. Still I would no nothing of the combined age argument had I not seen it posted.

**tito yuca** · 09-28-2009, 02:42 AM

You're right on the money. I've this numerous times here, and as soon as I spot it, I stop reading the guy's post. It immediately disqualifies you from being a smart poster.

That "argument" fails because guys in their late 30s and early 40s can still be highly ranked p4p, like B-Hop and Marquez are today, and guys in their early 20s can be either too green or simply bad fighters, like JJC Jr. Some dudes can even be shot by their late 20s, like Vargas and Morales. Sad but true.

**Unbiased** · 09-28-2009, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Spray_resistant

I come on here and have often read posts designed to degrade fighters by listing the combined age of two opponents like that someone how lessens their win over that opponent or said fighters current place is his weight division. I just think citing the combined age of a couple of fighters someone fought is the weakest argument ever in an attempt to discredit someone.
For example someone cites Hopkins and Jones as bad wins for Calzaghe by stating their combined age was over 80 when he fought them. As if they fused in to one really old guy and had 1 single fight with that bully Joe who took advantage of senior citizen Roy Hopkins jr. Or take Chad Dawson fighting Johnson and Tarver......yeah why is this young fresh fighter taking advantage of Antonio Johnson in the twilight years of his life?
I think its more quality of opponents that is important rather than their age. Since these were all LHW fights I cited name me 4 other LHWs listed who are better than the 4 who fought Calzaghe and Dawson. Tons of young fighters are ****, but we could also combine several of them and create one really really old guy that a good fighter fought too.....so next time think before you present and argument.

Age is not really the matter at hand. It's the decline in the boxer that comes with age.

I'm a Calzaghe fan, and I said it before the fight even happened. Roy Jones is too far gone from his prime. He has declined to the point where he is not the same fighter.

However, Bhop is a different story. While his workrate might have dropped from his younger years, his DEFENSE has actually improved. P4P I still rank him in the top 5. Clearly Bhop was a quality win for Calzaghe, considering Bhop school Pavlik not too long afterwards.

Bottomline, it's not the age. Some fighters age well and some don't. It's a combination of things. It's a mix of how well that fighter takes care of himself, his particular style of fighting, and what kind of wars he's been in.

**Spray_resistant** · 09-28-2009, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Unbiased

Age is not really the matter at hand. It's the decline in the boxer that comes with age.

I'm a Calzaghe fan, and I said it before the fight even happened. Roy Jones is too far gone from his prime. He has declined to the point where he is not the same fighter.

However, Bhop is a different story. While his workrate might have dropped from his younger years, his DEFENSE has actually improved. P4P I still rank him in the top 5. Clearly Bhop was a quality win for Calzaghe, considering Bhop school Pavlik not too long afterwards.

Bottomline, it's not the age. Some fighters age well and some don't. It's a combination of things. It's a mix of how well that fighter takes care of himself, his particular style of fighting, and what kind of wars he's been in.

That is a fine argument if you choose to make it, but I have on numerous occasions seen fools post argument specifically about the combined age and nothing else as if both fights were 1 fight fight against an extremely old fighter. Whether it be often, seldom, or just once...that is too much already.

Is the combined age of opponents the weakest arguement ever?